Chapter 1
What is the primary question Mill attempts to answer in On Liberty?
What are "the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual"?
What is a dead dogma?
A common belief that is unreflectively held (cultural relativism, round earth?)
True or False: Mill suggests that verbally hyping up an excited mob is sanctionable.
True! "An opinion that corn-dealers are starvers of the poor...ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn-dealer..."
True or False: According to Mill, we may socially shun people because of their expressed opinions.
True! "We have a right...to act upon our unfavorable opinion of any one, not to the oppression of his individuality, but in the exercise of ours."
What's the purpose of chapter 5?
To apply his theory to certain cases. (The title of the chapter is "Applications")
What is Mill's "one very simple principle?"
In order to track the truth, why should opinions not be censored? (Two reasons, 100 points for each)
1. We are fallible! (Germ theory, Heliocentrism, Socrates, Christian persecution)
2. Even false beliefs might contain partial truths.
DAILY DOUBLE!!!!
"...if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it."
True or False: Mill allows for religious legislation since observing different religions promotes diverse lifestyles.
False! "Another important example of illegitimate interference with the rightful liberty of the individual...is Sabbatarian legislation" (Although, I think he means religious legislation more generally)
Mill explicitly allows for the prohibition of doing what in public?
Drinking! (94-95 of my book) (Why does he say this???)
Are there any beings that are exceptions to Mill's Harm Principle?
Yes: animals, minors, dependents, "backward states of society in which the race itself may be
considered as in its nonage”
Objection: "We do not need to be infallible to know that the earth is not flat! We do not need to be certain. We just need good enough evidence (which we have). So, why not censor flat earthers?"
What is Mill's response?
1. Difference between assuming truth because it has not been falsified and assuming truth so that falsification cannot be attempted.
2. Knowledge involves true beliefs AND justification through DISCUSSION.
Why does Mill think individuality benefits others?
Greatness begets greatness & serving as an example
True or False: Mill allows for offensive speech to be legally restricted.
False! "...conduct which neither violates any specific duty to the public, nor occasions perceptible hurt to any assignable individual except himself; the inconvenience is one which society can afford to bear, for the sake of the greater good of human freedom." (my italics)
Mill considers both preventative and punitive functions of government. Which one does he think is more likely to be abused? Explain?
Preventative! (Basically, every aspect of a free human being could be fairly deemed a potential risk for harm) (93 of my book)
What are the three liberties Mill thinks a society must have to be free?
1. "inward domain of consciousness" (freedom of thought, feeling, opinion, sentiment, etc.) & outward expression (expressing and publishing opinions)
2. "tastes and pursuits" (hobbies, life plans, etc.)
3. "freedom to unite" (free association)
What's the problem with dead dogmas? How does Mill's dead dogma argument support free expression?
1. Prevents knowledge/understanding ("He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.")
2. Destroys the meaning/value of the dogma (Everything happens for a reason, it is what it is, golden rule)
Why does Mill think individuality benefits the individual?
It's an important quality of well-being: it often requires the exercising of intellectual faculties. (Consider Nozick's comments on about the person in the experience machine)
UTILITARIANISM!!!!!
A. Accommodate intuitions about rights under a principle of utility
Does Mill think other-regarding harm prevention is sufficient for restrictions?
Nope! (Seems like some harms are unavoidable---losing a job to a competitor) (pg 91 of my book)
Is other-regarding harm prevention necessary for restrictions?
(You might think of suicide prevention)
Does social media pose a problem for Mill's vision of open dialogues with those who disagree with us?
(One might worry about how algorithms and echo chambers work)
How do you think Mill would view AI usage today?
See pg 58 (of my book)
Is there a clear and meaningful difference between state punishment and social disassociation for some expressed opinion?
(unfollowing someone on Instagram because they're a jerk vs unfollowing someone on Instagram because they're transgender)
Is paternalism ever permissible? If so, when?
(Autonomy-violating acts? Acts that destroy the self?)