First and foremost, society exists for the protection of the individual freedom of each of its citizens. Neither society nor an individual “is warranted in saying to another human….that he shall not do with his life for his own benefit what he chooses to do with it”. Society does, however, have the ability to encourage or discourage the citizen with its collective opinion, and to judge the citizen for his actions and for his choices. The ability to advise and judge one’s compatriots is not only an opportunity, but a duty. Individuals in society “owe to each other help to distinguish the better from the worse, and encouragement to choose the former and avoid the latter” (ch2p2). The individual benefits from his compatriot’s feedback, so this exchange between individual’s freedom and society’s influence provides an opportunity for human progression.
Society, however, has only a “fractional”(2) interest in the individual, and its judgment can be “misapplied to individual cases”(2). The individual, therefore, as the “person most interested in his own well-being(2)” is himself the “the final judge” of the decisions he makes. He alone ultimately chooses how to use his “entitlement to free exercise”(2). Because of this, the individual is morally responsible for the “consequences of his acts”(4) and should “bear the whole penalty of his error”(4). Society punishes the individual’s errors with opinion and penalty, or applauds him for his achievements. It is Just, and beneficial to society, for the individual to be subjected to this judgment by society. Society’s power to enforce “moral retribution and punishment” (3) on the individual can and should be used to help the individual reach his full moral and intellectual potential. As individual’s morals and intellect solidify, society too will approach its potential.
Society’s power , then, is productive when it is used to help the individual become a better person. It should not be used “to the oppression of his individuality”(3) and should only restrict his personal freedom when his actions infringe on the freedom of his compatriots. In these cases, “society, as the protector of all its members, must retaliate on him”(4), judge his actions, and punish him accordingly. Ultimately, the power of society is its faculty to judge individual’s actions. Mill argues that individual freedom and social power can be used productively together, and need not conflict. Both are necessary for individual freedom to be an option in society.
All quotes were taken from chapter 4 of On Liberty
I realize I have not even begun to address the second question.
Emma,
ReplyDeleteThis post is well done. Nice job. You use quotations convincingly (especially in the second paragraph with the little bits coming together to form a strong argument about how the individual's RIGHTS give him RESPONSIBILITIES. It is clearly just for people who exercise their rights to perform the corresponding responsibilities. These responsibilities seem to include 1) not infringing on others' freedoms, and 2) submitting to the agreed-upon punishment if they do infringe on another's freedom.
I would challenge you to elaborate more on how society influences the people who "do wrong." I don't agree with your use of the word "judge" as a form of punishment. Judgement is a passive response, which may result in an action, which would then influence the transgressor. Are you implying that ridicule or scorn would be the punishment?
What role does physical punishment have? Both sticking somebody in prison and harming him physically are ways of removing his individual freedoms. In society, as Marx insists, there is always a complex history behind an event. It is naive to think that at some point, the "punishments" would not be seen as the transgressions, which would then require punishment. As you can see, a cycle of reciprocal physical harm is set in motion, with different people seeing the same action as either the initial harm or the revenge.
In response to the second part of the blog-post question: individual freedom is too expansive when individuals are allowed to indulge in rights without being held to responsibilities. It seems plausible that following the rule of "right = responsibility" would maintain the balance of individual freedom and societal power.
Sarah-
ReplyDeletethanks for your feedback. I think that Mill's would argue that "judgment" by society for one's actions is in itself a punishment because: if his neighbors scorn him or don't take him seriously, they will stop advising him, interacting with him, and giving him the feedback that is necessary for him to make informed good decisions, and generally progress in intellect and morals. obviously, more severe punishment would be necessary if he was to infringe on another man's freedom.
Emma,
ReplyDeleteI think we have different ideas of what the word, "judgement" means. To me, judgement is something that happens inside one person's mind. When judgement stays in the mind, it does not affect anything outside the person thinking it.
The impacts of judgement are results of the actions caused by judgement. For instance, if I judge you, that doesn't change anything for you. If, however, I judge you and then stop talking to you, you are impacted. So the judgement is a step in the process, but it's not the key piece in making an impact.
Emma-- Great post...I especially like the last paragraph where you describe the balance between freedom and social power, and how they are both essential for a moral or just world. I would love to see you dig deeper into what "just" really means, perhaps drawing on Utilitarianism (the yellow sheet we read in class).
ReplyDeleteI also think you did a good job of setting yourself up to answer the question of is there a limit to how much freedom individuals should have, and would have liked to see you directly answer that.