Free speech is a fundamental freedom that is essential to the overall well-being of society. Looking at countries that guarantee free speech for most individuals and comparing the state of well-being of residents to those that do not guarantee free speech, it is recognizable that having free speech is important. For example, the overall well-being of Canadian residents is greater than the overall well-being of North Korean residents and we have free speech while North Koreans do not. In his famous work On Liberty, John Stuart Mill states that “[i]f all mankind minus one were of one 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” (Mill 18). I will
…show more content…
If individuals are not allowed to do so, the overall well-being of society declines which is not the goal of a utilitarian’s society. In a utilitarian state, the greatest amount of good is sought after for the greatest number of people. To justify his point, Mill explains three situations where speech is censored and discusses the ramifications. The first situation is the censorship of the truth. Mill states that if the truth is censored, society will continue living in falsehood and therefore it cannot progress. He believes that humans are rational and therefore must be interested in the truth. If truthful opinions and ideas were censored, new discoveries cannot be established despite those discoveries potentially being world changing. I agree that censoring ideas is harmful to society because the ideas could be true. For example, if the truth that the earth is round was censored, explorers would not have gone out and discovered more land. They would have continued to believe that the world is flat and so if they were to travel too far they would fall off the edge of the earth and die. The second situation is the censorship of falsehoods. Mill argues that censoring false speech weakens society because society is not being challenged to prove why the speech is false. He also believes that if society does not tackle these falsehoods, they will still exist in society but …show more content…
He argues that individuals cannot cause harm to others in society and they must give back to society and so if an individual does not fulfill these responsibilities the government can intervene. Mill believes in a public sphere where the actions of an individual impact other members of society as well as a private sphere where the actions of an individual only impact themselves. Actions can be positive or negative depending on how they impact other individual’s happiness and satisfaction. An individual is free to commit positive or negative actions in his private sphere as he is not impacting the overall happiness of society. However, in the public sphere, an individual must consider the impact of his actions on the rest of the individuals in society and therefore he can only commit actions that do not cause harm. Mill believes that an individual is harmed only if he is hurt physically because that is something that an individual cannot control. He distinguishes between physical harm and offense by stating that offense can be controlled since it can be ignored. I feel this logic requires a little bit more thought. Hate speech, while it can be ignored, can also instigate others that feel the same way to act out. For example, while Mill might believe that the statement all Muslims are terrorists and they should all die is
If individuals are not allowed to do so, the overall well-being of society declines which is not the goal of a utilitarian’s society. In a utilitarian state, the greatest amount of good is sought after for the greatest number of people. To justify his point, Mill explains three situations where speech is censored and discusses the ramifications. The first situation is the censorship of the truth. Mill states that if the truth is censored, society will continue living in falsehood and therefore it cannot progress. He believes that humans are rational and therefore must be interested in the truth. If truthful opinions and ideas were censored, new discoveries cannot be established despite those discoveries potentially being world changing. I agree that censoring ideas is harmful to society because the ideas could be true. For example, if the truth that the earth is round was censored, explorers would not have gone out and discovered more land. They would have continued to believe that the world is flat and so if they were to travel too far they would fall off the edge of the earth and die. The second situation is the censorship of falsehoods. Mill argues that censoring false speech weakens society because society is not being challenged to prove why the speech is false. He also believes that if society does not tackle these falsehoods, they will still exist in society but …show more content…
He argues that individuals cannot cause harm to others in society and they must give back to society and so if an individual does not fulfill these responsibilities the government can intervene. Mill believes in a public sphere where the actions of an individual impact other members of society as well as a private sphere where the actions of an individual only impact themselves. Actions can be positive or negative depending on how they impact other individual’s happiness and satisfaction. An individual is free to commit positive or negative actions in his private sphere as he is not impacting the overall happiness of society. However, in the public sphere, an individual must consider the impact of his actions on the rest of the individuals in society and therefore he can only commit actions that do not cause harm. Mill believes that an individual is harmed only if he is hurt physically because that is something that an individual cannot control. He distinguishes between physical harm and offense by stating that offense can be controlled since it can be ignored. I feel this logic requires a little bit more thought. Hate speech, while it can be ignored, can also instigate others that feel the same way to act out. For example, while Mill might believe that the statement all Muslims are terrorists and they should all die is