Does Mill think that social power should be limited as well, lest social tyranny wreaks havoc?

Forums:
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Context:

However, in Mill's view, limiting the power of government was not enough. He stated, "Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself."[21]

More:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill#Social_liberty_and_tyranny_of_majority

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 1 • Views: 469 • Replies: 6

No top replies

View best answer, chosen by oristarA

@oristarA,

Quote:

Does Mill think that social power should be limited as well, lest social tyranny wreaks havoc?

Sho nuff, Oris. Mill would detest the indirect suppression of free speech and harmless conduct via rigorously enforeced standards of "political correctness." Your cite notes that: It is important to emphasise that Mill did not consider giving offence to constitute "harm"; an action could not be restricted because it violated the conventions or morals of a given society. Along these same lines it says:

Quote:

Mill argues that free discourse is a necessary condition for intellectual and social progress. We can never be sure, he contends, that a silenced opinion does not contain some element of the truth....Mill wrote, "unmeasured vituperation, employed on the side of prevailing opinion, really does deter people from expressing contrary opinions, and from listening to those who express them."

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
Does Mill think that social power should be limited as well, lest social tyranny wreaks havoc?

Sho nuff, Oris. Mill would detest the indirect suppression of free speech and harmless conduct via rigorously enforeced standards of "political correctness." Your cite notes that: It is important to emphasise that Mill did not consider giving offence to constitute "harm"; an action could not be restricted because it violated the conventions or morals of a given society.

Thanks.
Failed to get "an action could not be restricted because it violated the conventions or morals of a given society" clearly.

(1) Does "an action" refer to "giving offense to"? (While this action constitutes/forms "harm" to some people, Mill doesn't consider that it really harm)
(2) Does "giving offense to" mean "offending"?
(3) Because such action is among natural qualities of human nature, it cannot be restricted, even though it violates the conventions or morals of a given society?

Quote:

Mill argues that free discourse is a necessary condition for intellectual and social progress. We can never be sure, he contends, that a silenced opinion does not contain some element of the truth....Mill wrote, "unmeasured vituperation, employed on the side of prevailing opinion, really does deter people from expressing contrary opinions, and from listening to those who express them."

1 Reply

@oristarA,

Quote:

Failed to get "an action could not be restricted because it violated the conventions or morals of a given society" clearly.

He thinks it is an illegitimate limitation on liberty to prohibit something merely because it violates morals or convention. According to Mill, the only justification for such restraints is self-protection from (real) harm.

Quote:

(1) Does "an action" refer to "giving offense to"? (While this action constitutes/forms "harm" to some people, Mill doesn't consider that it really harm)

No. Giving an offense would be an example of such an action, but it is not what the word "action" specifically refers to in this sentence. It's broader than that.

Quote:

(2) Does "giving offense to" mean "offending"?

Right, that's what it means here. Personally I would note a difference between "giving" offense and "taking" offense, but that's not an issue here.

Quote:

(3) Because such action is among natural qualities of human nature, it cannot be restricted, even though it violates the conventions or morals of a given society?

No, I don't think his argument rests on what he considers to be "natural qualities of human nature."

Again, his main thesis is:

Quote:

The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection...Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign

To paraphrase: Don't try to tell me what to do, say, or think if I'm not harming you.

1 Reply

@layman,

Cool.
Thanks.
Does "any of their number" mean "any one of their men/the people"?

1 Reply

@oristarA,

oristarA wrote:

Cool.
Thanks.
Does "any of their number" mean "any one of their men/the people"?

Sho nuff. In particular, it refers to the guy(s) being "interfered with."

0 Replies

As I recall, one thing Mill was arguing against was the tendency to make things illegal "for the good of the persons being prohibited" like seat belt laws or drug offenses, for example.

But he didn't have those kinds of things in mind, really. Maybe something like passing a law requiring everyone to go to church on Sunday because "it was for their own salvation," or laws against homosexuality, because it was "immoral," etc. He argued that "I don't like that behavior" was NOT a sufficient reason to make it illegal--even if 99% of the people agreed.

0 Replies

Forums
» Does Mill think that social power should be limited as well, lest social tyranny wreaks havoc?

Read Question
Reply to All

Does Mill think that social power should be limited as well, lest social tyranny wreaks havoc?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know