John Stuart Mill was a utilitarian; Utilitarianism, also called ‘the greatest happiness principle’ is a simplified ethical ordinance in which quite simply pleasures are categorised into ‘moral worth’ which are further influenced by their usefulness or utility respectively. This usefulness of each pleasure is again determined by how much it has to offer in terms of how a person has come by this pleasure, for example; if a person decides to read a comic rather than a book by Plato then this person isn’t able to appreciate true pleasure which can be derived out of discerping and interpreting the details of such a deep and substantive piece of literature whereas the comic book displays all the information that is needed to understand its contents on each page. This superficial versus intense and deep employment of the mind is the degree in which ‘utility’ is measured (knowledge is happiness).

Mill, himself, to be precise, had a more generalised view of Utilitarianism; he stated that only pleasure is desirable as pleasure itself is all that is desired. He essentially believed that all morally sound actions whenever applied would help to achieve the greatest total happiness.

Mill distinguishes between offensive behaviour, behaviour that incites harm and directly harmful actions such as a father beating his children with a belt. Any type of expression that directly influences outward violent behaviour to other people, even if one is not the perpetrator but simply an act guiding the offence into happening is regarded as harmful.

At this point Mill introduces the Harm Principle; the cornerstone of this precept resides in the idea that no one should be prevented from behaving in any particular way by force, until this one’s actions directly impose on another person causing them harm. By harm it is also understood that these actions include those that outright infringe someone else’s freedom. Blocking a person’s freedom can be anything, from physically restraining them with shackles, to passing laws that threaten punishment if these are broken. An example of such a law can be taken from Italy where "a man may be arrested for wearing a skirt". Obviously this is an example of an action that could never cause someone else harm, which calls in to question why this law exists.

According to Mill this type of expression; wearing the clothes one wants to [be it a man in a skirt or a woman in trousers] would not warrant arrest, because there is no justification that this could cause harm in any way, without demonstrating some form of irrational argument. It is true that in most cases governments assume that they are infallible which means that they will not accept any other opinion as true except their own. Mill States that absolute certainty does not exist but that one would have a lesser chance of being undermined if the views that one presents can stand up to scrutiny and counter arguments (this would raise confidence in ones own arguments). The effect of infallibility inevitably causes the suppression of ideas of other thinkers, whom could otherwise have contributed greatly, but feel they are going against the mainstream and are thus ashamed to present their theories. An example of such thought oppression would be the church in the 16th century denouncing Galileo’s theory that the earth revolved around the sun (heliocentric model). We now know that the church was wrong and even consider it nonsense but this does not mean that we are right "Many beliefs that were once held as certainties have been considered by later generations not only to be false, but to be absurd" (Wolff, in Warburton, 1999, p. 183.)

We should never presume that we are incapable of making errors, because dissenting views could inspire us to find new wisdom within the procedure of debate and venture closer to the complete truth. The church had disallowed all discussions, and enforcing its views, creating what Mill calls a ‘Dead Dogma’. This argument was and is omnipresent within modern society; from complex, communal, comprehensive structures such as religion where the word of a "rabbi" in a synagogue for example, would never be contested, to the simplest of notions such as reading words, sentences, and books from left to right or eating with a knife and fork and using a napkin (etiquette). It is because these views and norms aren’t contested that they eventually wither and fall subject to blind prejudice.

The idea of the ‘Dead Dogma’ focuses on the concept that these norms are accepted to the point where no one would think to question or discuss them. They will be passed on to following generations in what is known as a hereditary creed, when children pick up what they have been taught and have seen from their parents or immediate surroundings.

b) [1190] – Is Mill’s case successful?

To understand if Mill’s case is successful one needs to understand that his theory is based on individualistic proposals. He declares that most actions of any individual do not affect or concern others. This is an assumption that not many of his contemporaries, opposers respectively share. The question is: Should members of a civilized society tolerate unlimited freedom of expression? Ought people broadcast, print, publish or convey electronically any opinion, no matter how radical or revolutionary, sexist, racist, or pornographic? Are persons to be allowed to express whatever they like?

Few believe that there should not be any boundaries on the views individuals are able to convey. Mill’s Harm Principle provides a way of discriminating between those views which should be tolerated and those that should not. According to this Principle, any view which does not harm others should be tolerated; only views which cause harm to others may be suppressed.

Mill is explicit in saying that mere offence to others doesn’t amount to harm. The harm principle requires more tangible harm than mere offence in order to justify suppressing an individual’s freedom to express his or her opinion. For instance, a speech which incited racial violence would be the sort of expression of opinion which a follower of Mill might be prepared to ban.

Mill puts it this way, "Even opinions lose their immunity when the circumstances in which they are expressed are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act."

Nevertheless, for Mill, freedom of speech is a mark of a civilized society and provides a valuable safeguard against stagnation and decay (Dead Dogma).

Article name: Mills Case For Freedom Of Expression Philosophy essay, research paper, dissertation

Make Assignments Great Again

24/7 customer support: philosophy/120780-mills-case-for-freedom-of-expression-philosophy.html