Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
42 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is the principle of utility? |
The principle of utility states that an action's worth can be calculated by its tendency to increase or decrease the net happiness of all the parties effected by it. |
|
|
What is the harm principle? |
The harm principle is the limit to individual liberty and the beginning of justified state intervention. An individual's liberty extends only to the point at which another individual is harmed by it - at this point, the state is justified in intervening to prevent harm. (I.e One can do what one wants as long as it does not harm another person). |
|
|
What is the tyranny of the majority? |
The tyranny of the majority is when the majority(or those who make themselves accepted as the majority) oppresses another section of society. |
|
|
What is a self-regarding action? |
A self-regarding action is one that only effects the person that performs it. |
|
|
What is an other-regarding action? |
An other regarding action is an action that effects persons other than the person that performs it. |
|
|
Is there anything wrong with performing an other regarding action? |
No, performing an other regarding action is not wrong per se. An action can effect another person so long as it does not harm them. |
|
|
The ambiguity - What is harm? |
Harm vs Offence Harm - something that causes pain to another person either directly or indirectly. Offence - something that hurts someone's feelings. |
|
|
What are Mill's 3 areas of human liberty? |
1. Freedom of thought/ freedom of expression 2. Freedom of action, whereby those actions cause no harm to others 3. Freedom of association, where such associations are freely formed and not for the purpose of harming others. |
|
|
Justified or not Justified? A law that prohibits a person selling themselves into slavery. |
Justified. Although, prima facie, this is a self regarding action, there is a problem with it. The problem is that liberty is granted so that it may be used and, by selling oneself into slavery, one is foregoing future use of one's liberty. (I.e. One is forbidden to use one's freedom to limit their freedom). [JSM, On Liberty. 2003:174-5. Bromwich and Kateb. Vail-Ballou Press, Binghamton, New York] |
|
|
Does Mill support the harm principle being used to stop offence? |
No, Mill does not believe that someone's feelings being hurt is reason enough to curb another person's liberty. This is linked to his dislike of tyranny of the majority. Just because the majority dislike something, does not make it wrong. Each person should be free to discover what their own version of the 'good life' is, so long as it does not harm another person. |
|
|
A JSM quote on freedom of expression |
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. |
|
|
Freedom of expression VS offence (hurting someone's feelings) A caveat... |
Mill does place some limits on free expression of opinion, namely, when ‘the circumstances in which they are expressed are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act’. (I.e. any expression which causes harm should be censored). Mill does write that it is okay to opine that corn dealers are starvers of the poor in a newspaper but it is okay to do the same in front of an angry mob. (Is there a difference here, Nazi Germany?) |
|
|
Justified or not justified? A law that prohibits suicide. |
Justified, I believe. This is not a clear cut question of self regarding vs other regarding harms. 1.I imagine Mill's views on this are informed more by the principle of utility here and he would not see suicide simply as a self regarding harm. Suicide is not likely to increase the net utility of all the parties effected by it and that would make it immoral. 2.Remember that Mill was against any freedom that gave a person the freedom to curb their own freedom(selling oneself into slavery). Surely suicide does exactly that - it prevents one from ever using one's freedom again. |
|
|
Justified or not justified? A law that prohibits gambling. |
I believe this can be argued either way but I am going to say not justified. The state has no right to coerce people from harming themselves nor the right to punish people for profiting from the poor decisions of others - such as the potential pain caused from gambling. 1.Gambling can result in other regarding harms if the actor neglects dependants in order to gamble. 2.Gambling can cause debts which can also result in dependants becoming neglected. 3.On the other hand, if one has enough money then a small amount of gambling is reasonable. 4.It is not fair to curb everyone's freedom to gamble because there are some persons that could cause harm to others through gambling. 5.This is another question that can be solved on an individual basis by applying the principle of utility. |
|
|
Alienation, Marx and Mill. What's the connection? |
Mill's objection to offence being included as a means of harm has similarities with Marx's views on alienation. For Mill, a society that bans disagreeable actions can alienate individuals from their true self. For Mill, the way in which we find our version of the good life is to experiment and we should be at liberty to do so - even if it goes against the norms of society. I think Marx would agree. |
|
|
Edward Gibbon Wakefield Who was he? |
An influential political economist in the nineteenth century. Wakefield defended a view that said the problems causing economic slowdown were lack of land and an excess of capital and labour. The cure for those problems was imperialism and colonisation. Wakefield believed that by pouring excess labour and capital into colonies, Britain could create civilised trading partners and solve poverty at home. Wakefield was a great influence on many 19th century thinkers such as Marx, Bentham and Mill. |
|
|
John Stuart Mill on colonialism. Influence of E.G. Wakefield. |
JSM's thought on colonialism were influenced by EGW's and this explains his paternalistic view towards 'uncivilised' peoples of the British colonies. |
|
|
Imagine you are making the choice for 19th century Britain on whether or not to intervene. French Rebels request assistance to overthrow the French government. To intervene or not to intervene? |
Don't Intervene. This would be disturbing the balance of power. If the contest is only with native rulers(French government), interventionis not justified. A people must be, 'willing to brave labour and danger for their liberation.' Because no people, 'ever was and remained free, but because it was determined to be so.' |
|
|
Imagine you are making the choice for 19th century Britain on whether or not to intervene. The Russians have invaded France and are winning the war. The French government request assistance. To intervene or not to intervene? |
Intervene. Helping the French fight off the Russians is justified because the balance of power would not be disturbed by the intervention. ‘[t]o assist a people thus kept down, is not to disturb the balanceof forces on which the permanent maintenance of freedom in a countrydepends, but to redress that balance when it is already unfairly and violentlydisturbed’. |
|
|
Imagine you are making the choice for 19th century Britain on whether or not to intervene. There is an American revolution which has been stopped in its tracks because the French government is supplying the other side with weapons. To intervene or not to intervene? |
Intervene. The French have already intervened and upset the balance. It is up to you to stop that. The anti-revolutionaries are 'a native tyranny upheld by foreign arms’. No matter how capable the American revolutionaries are of ‘defending and making a good use of free institutions’, theymight find it impossible to fight successfully for free institutions againstthe military strength of a much more powerful foreign nation.' |
|
|
From these examples, what are the principles of foreign intervention? |
Has the worldwide balance of power already been upset? If yes, Intervene. If no, Don't Intervene. |
|
|
What are the problems associated with Tyranny of the Majority? |
(1) Just because a decision has been taken democratically, it does not make it correct. The majority can still use their power to oppress the minority. |
|
|
What are the problems of anarchy? (Anarchy will be defined as true liberty, where there is no justified state intervention). |
(1) There will be persons who will abuse their liberties in anarchy to exploit others. |
|
|
Who is not to be allowed to exercise their liberties within the boundaries of the harm principle? |
(1) Children (2) Barbarians (3) Those who are not in the maturity of their faculties. |
|
|
Is Mill right to place this caveat, that liberty is to be restricted to those that have the maturity of their faculties? |
(1) If a child prefers to play than to learn to write, is that a decision that they ought to be allowed to take? I think Mill is right here, children do not have the foresight to know all that is and is not in their best interests. This is developed behaviour. (2) On barbarians, Mill is wrong. JSM makes the mistake of assuming that he has cultural development. Rousseau would say that man was at his happiest when he was at his most innocent and ignorant. JSM's assumption that advancement would bring happiness is not testable. |
|
|
A Whiggish principle - when is the harm principle to be of use? |
Allowing maximum liberty has as much potential to harm the 'wrong' society as it does to progress the 'right' society. Mill sees the evolution of society towards enlightenment as a real thing. Liberty should only be maximised when a society reaches a certain level of maturity. Otherwise, to give maxliberty to barbarians, would actually hinder their progression as a society. |
|
|
Does society advance towards enlightenment? |
Yes, though it may be slower than JSM thinks. Taking the twentieth century as an example, an arms race (which was supposed to ensure peace) brought Europe and many other countries to war in 1914. Some may say this was repeated in the 1930s - leading to another great and tragic war - but rather, the major european powers followed a strategy of appeasement which once again led to war. In the cold war, another arms race did not lead to an out and out war - were lessons learnt here? Fast forward to the modern age and states such as N.Korea receive sanctions for aggressive actions rather than appeasement. Whether this works or not is another question - another on the path towards enlightenment. |
|
|
Is there harm in suppressing a false view, rather than allowing it time to be expressed in order that we can exchange falsehood for truth and reaffirm our true beliefs? |
Implicit in this assumption and most important to it is that the advancement of knowledge is always a good thing. There is a difference between a belief that is certain and a belief that one is certain of. To not recognise this difference is to assume infallibility. Infallibility is simply not true. Historical beliefs, however certain they were at the time - slavery, religion - are often considered not only to be false, but also absurd by later generations. Implicit in this assumption and most important to it is that the advancement of knowledge is always a good thing. |
|
|
Is advancement of knowledge always a good thing? |
(1) Advancement of knowledge has brought us nerve gas and other chemical and biological weapons. (2) Rousseau argued that ignorance and innocence had brought humanity bliss and that society and its advancements had made it impossible for humanity ever to return to that bliss. (3) The fact that there is even a debate about whether we ought to pursue freedom of opinion or advancement of knowledge proves once again that we are fallible and ought to allow free debate. |
|
|
JSM states that he will not rely on any advantages that can be gained from ideas of abstract rights. What is right and wrong about this? |
(1) The idea of natural rights is challenging. Those that say they exist, portray them as fundamental and basic. The problem with this is that those who do not believe they exist can easily challenge them as they have no founding proofs. (2) JSM, Bentham, do not agree with rights. Rights interfere with utilitarian thinking. (3) BUT JSM talks of 'rights-based interests' such as the right not to be forcibly removed from one's home. (continued) |
|
|
JSM's rights-based interests sound a lot like "interests that should be respected because they have some basis in law." An example of inconsistency? |
One has the right not to be removed forcibly from the home that one owns by a rapacious mob. BUT One does not have the right not to be forcibly removed from the home that one occupies when one cannot afford to pay the bills. Harm will be caused in both - the same harm - but one is protected as a rights-based interest. Why is one okay and one is not?* |
|
|
What is an indirect utilitarian and what do they do? |
JSM is an indirect utilitarian meaning that he does not believe that there ought ot be one and only one rule in society - maximise happiness. Rather, sensing the problem of scapegoating(etc), JSM sees that there can be other rules that promote a private sphere in which utility can be consistently maximised. E.g. the right to a fair trial can provide protection against the gains in utility that scapegoating may provide. |
|
|
The difference between having one's home repossessed by the bank or an angry mob. |
Allowing the bank to repossess one's home is beneficial because it conditions persons to respect their contracts - a fundamental function of the limited government. It promotes utility because people will honour their agreements and trust each other. Protecting a person from a rapacious mob promotes utility because it will mean people feel safe and without fear. |
|
|
Is there something implicit in the two? |
Implicit in the first is that having people trust each other and honour contracts is good. Trust promotes prosperity. Implicit in the second is that people living without fear is good. When persons do not have to worry first about their own safety, they are more likely to prosper. |
|
|
Natural Rights vs Utilitarian 'Rights' |
(1) Natural Rights are a foundation and as such they are not created by argument. (1) Utilitarian Rights on the other hand are based on the foundation that happiness is good and that these rights will promote happiness. (2) Natural Rights are based on convention which is anti-liberal. (2) Utilitarian Rights are based on whatever promotes utility. (3) Do both of these fall into the same trap then? If what makes persons happiest is to know that they have rights that they can rely on then does the fact that they are natural or not really matter? |
|
|
(1) What did James Fitzjames Steven say? (2) JSM accepts that liberty is not an unfailing source of improvement. BUT We are most likely to be the best judge of what is best for us because... (First Reason for championing liberty) |
(1) liberty is like fire - controlled it brings us advancement, uncontrolled it brings us disaster. (2) ...Though we do make mistakes we are still most likely to think of things in our own interests. We are most likely to give things the most thought when they effect us most. |
|
|
What is wrong with being a slave to custom? Is there justification for this? (Second reason for championing liberty) |
Slaves to custom do not exercise their capacity for choice. - This makes them less well rounded individuals. - Underdeveloped individuals. What is wrong with not exercising one's capacity for choice? Is there anything wrong with a person that always does what they are told? It is not always a beneficial path - consider Eichmann and the banality of evil. Arendt says the key to being a citizen is to question what one is told to be true. |
|
|
The most important reason for JSM. Why should persons be encouraged to experiment with and choose their own way of life? (Third reason for championing liberty) |
JSM sees this as the true path to progress. It draws on his belief that it is good to have difference in opinion as this helps persons question what is right. (Exercising choice) Also, by having experimenting persons, others can gain inspiration on how to live(and not to live) their own lives. (They can judge what is best for them with many options) |
|
|
In JSM's view, what is good for its own sake? Why is liberty good? |
Only happiness is good for its own sake. Everything else is only good insomuch as it contributes to the overall happiness. JSM believes liberty is good for that reason - it is only good when it contributes to happiness. It is not an independent and intrinsically good value. |
|
|
Mill's major inconsistency. |
Public decency. JSM states (though not clearly) that offence against decency in public may be prohibited. Though it may seem a strange thing to argue for, performing "standard" sexual intercourse in a public place does not harm any one else but it will tend to offend persons. JSM is arguing against it but on ground that it is offensive. This is a complete inconsistency in his work. |
|
|
Marxist Critique. What is the difference between human emancipation and political emancipation? |
Political emancipation is something similar to what Mill is arguing for. This is what he calls liberty. Constitutive of this liberty is rights to equality, security, property and other freedoms. Marx's liberty, human emancipation, is more than this. Marx sees this as a community of equals that cooperate as members of a society. |
|
|
Can Mill's liberalism and Marx's human emancipation coincide? |
No, Marx states that not only does this liberalism fall short of true freedom, it impedes it as well. In JSM's political emancipation, everyone sees everyone else as a limit to their own liberty. This does not sponsor cooperation. Economic competition forces persons to treat each other as means to ends. |
