The individual is given as much freedom as he desires so long as he does not harm anyone else. Society requires the individual to give up certain desires for him to join; if he wishes to be a part of society and obtain the security of it, he must accept that the security also protects the other individuals in the society and therefore he may not harm them if he wishes to remain a part of it. The individual appears to have vast amounts of freedom; however, no man lives in isolation and one man’s acts, innocuous as they may seem, are capable of affecting everyone around that man, and these acts often do. If this individual is just plain annoying and an altogether undesirable sort of person, unless he commits a distinct crime against the specific laws of society, “The offender may then be justly punished by opinion, though not by law” (chapter IV). Social power may include persons encouraging the individual who commits immoral acts to change his ways through persuasion and demonstrating how immoral his previous acts were, but he cannot actually be punished by law to change unless he has done a lot of harm to another person.
Although the individual is given freedom, he must acknowledge that almost everything he does has an effect on those around him. Mill uses the example (chapter IV) of a man who destroys his property, which has a direct effect on the community around him, and a man who harms himself, thereby destroying the happiness of those who depend on his happiness, the people who care for him and do not wish to see him harmed. Nearly everything that a person does affects another person. Ultimately, though, the individual must choose for himself what to do, no matter how much pressure is put on him by society to change his ways, because “all errors which he is likely to commit against advice and warning, are far outweighed by the evil of allowing others to constrain him to what they deem his good” (chapter IV). He may be pressured by the others in society if he is just a crap person, but he cannot be persecuted by law if he is only exercising his individual freedom in a manner that harms only himself or his belongings. He may have opinions that others do not agree with and do not like, perhaps ones that befit his personality as a really annoying guy, but “if all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind” (chapter II). As a collective society, everyone is searching for the truth and silencing one person’s truth could mean silencing the real truth because others’ opinions may help shape one’s own personal truth and all that.
In my opinion, there is such thing as too much individual freedom: although of course everyone rejoices in “Freedom”, too much freedom allows a person to do as much harm as he wishes to himself and no one would have the power to stop him because that would infringe upon his rights as an individual. The individual should, however, be given as much freedom of speech as he requires to speak freely, and share his opinion without being silenced.
good work molly, your casual tone and quotes like "befit his personality as a really annoying guy" made this interesting to read.
ReplyDeletei would implore you to go further into your own opinion, while the things you wrote about in the majority of the paper were what mill would think, i found the most interesting part to read your personal opinion of how those fit into the question.
if a person can have to much individual freedom, do you think that laws should be put in place to protect and restrain that freedom for the good of the society? is it helpful for an individual who is close minded to poison a discussion with an alternate view when that individual will not budge in opinion? should individuals be restricted within a society in regards to their individual freedom? do you personally think that the "one annoying guy" is necessary for a group to find correct rational answers?
just some questions to think about, you covered Mills solution well though.
Great post molly, and thanks for doing it this week.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is a thing as too much freedom because if we were all completely free and able to do anything, society would become pointless. If I could run outside tomorrow and kill you, then your security would be just as poor within society as it would be if you were living in the woods all by yourself. For me though, I find this not to be an issue in Mill. The idea that almost everything a person does affects those around him, and the weight he gives social power in his arguments serve to provide consequences for those undesirable acts not punishable by law. It almost seems like the societal power has more power then the actual laws of the government, because although the laws serve as a deterrent for people who might decide to commit a crime and a punishment for those who do, society affects how people think about crimes and creates people for whom something like murder doesn't even seem a possibility. If a society truly looks poorly on murder and other crimes, seeing them as unforgivable or whatever, then I think the amount of crimes committed would be tinny.
Anyway, thanks for posting this time!
thanks for the comments, guys. really good feedback.
ReplyDeleteMiles: i wasn't really sure if we were supposed to be really answering with our opinion or mill's, but those are really good questions.