• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
John Stuart Mill's hallmark work 
On Liberty
addresses the powers society can legitimatelyexercise over free individuals. In Mill's view, society has two means of exercising power of the individual: through democratic governance and through societal disapproval. While Millmakes a strong case for limited power of the state, the application of "majority tyranny"
1
tothe non-governmental actions of society -- rather than just to the government -- creates ahandful of logical and practical shortcomings. In my account, I will detail the ideas presentedin
On Liberty
, defending Mill's conception of a libertarian state while presenting objections tohis idea that society as a whole should not move to restrict individuals.While democracy is generally regarded as a
relatively
"good" form of government, Mill isright to point out one major flaw of the system: Democracy allows the many to impede theliberties of the few. Democracy, Mill writes on page 335
2
, "is not the government of each byhimself, but of each by all the rest. [...] The people, consequently, may desire to oppress a part of their number." It's entirely conceivable that 51 percent of the population could vote tooutlaw a certain action while 49 percent of the population could have a strong desire toengage in the very same action. Additionally, there's no evidence that the 51 percent of  people who voted in support of the policy would have any legitimate reasoning for supportingthe policy. Therefor, the action which the policy in question outlaws does not necessarily produce any intrinsic or observably instrumental badness.Because democracy allows for majority tyranny (and most, if not all, other forms of government allow for some other form of tyranny) Mill argues we need a principled guidelinefor what powers governments can legitimately exercise over citizens, even when thosegovernments are democratically represented. Mill writes on page 338, "There is, in fact, norecognized principle by which the propriety or impropriety of government interference is1.The term "tyranny of the majority" was likely first used inAlexis de Tocqueville's
 Democracy in America
. In addition to Mill's use in
On Liberty
, Alexander Hamilton andJames Madison used the term in the Federalist Papers.2.Fumerton, Richard.
 Philosophy and the Just Society.
Mason, Ohio: Cenaeg Learning,2009.
An Evaluation of John Stuart Mill's Conception of Majority TyrannyAdam B SullivanPhilosophy and the Just SocietyHannibal Jackson
 
customarily tested [...] And it seems to me that in consequence of this absence of rule or  principle, one side is at present as often wrong as the other side." A social contract theoristmight present the "love it or leave it" argument: Citizens are permitted to opt out of obeying agovernment's rule, so long as that citizen discontinues the consumption of any of the benefitsthe country offers. In order to cease consuming the country's benefits, though, the personwould need to remove him or herself from the geographical area the country inhabits. I wouldrefute the social contract theorist's objection with the suggestion that the government does notnecessarily have a legitimate claim to the geographic area. While I don't have a definitiveargument to support that suggestion, I can't conceive of a good argument in support of theidea that government's should have unfettered control over the geographical area the countryinhabits. Additionally, the person may not possess the means to leave the country due toeither a lack of resources or a lack of an alternative location in which to live.Having established the necessity of a principled standard to determine when society canand cannot interfere with the rights of individuals, Mill moves on to his attempt to establishwhat that principled standard should be. Mill develops the harm principle. On page 339 weget the best definition of the harm principle when Mill writes that "...the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, againsthis will, is to prevent harm to others." In essence, the law is only justified in preventingactions which negatively affect others. Conceding that the principle is broad, Mill proceeds tooffer more specific conditions for applying the harm principle: 1. The harm principle can beapplied to situations in which one's actions are
likely
to harm others; 2. The harm principle isa necessary condition for the the state to impede the liberties of individuals, not a sufficientcondition for doing so; 3. The harm principle is not applicable to situations in which the person being harmed is doing so at his or her own request; 4. The harm principle can beapplied to situations in which individuals fail to prevent harm to others;. These specificationsall lend themselves to common objections, each of which I will attempt to refute in defense of Mill's harm principle:
An Evaluation of John Stuart Mill's Conception of Majority TyrannyAdam B SullivanPhilosophy and the Just SocietyHannibal Jackson
 
1. Many would argue this specification allows the harm principle to be appliedto nearly all situations. Actions which increase the likeliness of harm to others eventhe slightest amount, it seems, could be legitimately restricted by the state,according to Mill's principle. However, that the harm principle is a necessary, notsufficient, condition for the impediment of liberties makes allowable minor increases in the probability of harm.2. A common rebuttal to this specification is that the harm principle becomesalmost useless if it does not give us a sufficient condition(s) by which we canrestrict behavior. However, I would argue that by making the harm principle anecessary rather than sufficient condition, Mill acknowledges that many situationsrequire further interpretation than that which can be supplied by a broad principle.3. Arguments against this specification revolve around whether or not people canever truly act with complete free will
3
. However, if we concede that the person towhom harm is being caused is not acting with free will, we must also concede the person causing the harm is just as likely not acting with free will and can therefor not be held responsible for causing harm. Insofar as people can choose to harmothers, they can choose to let others cause them harm.4. Opponents of the harm principle might argue here that this specification makesthe harm principle almost impossible to apply because there are far too many casesof people failing to prevent harm to others. If this specification were followedexactly, everyone would have to spend all of their time preventing harm to othersuntil there was no longer any risk of anyone being harmed. Rather than refute thatobjection, I will save further discussion of this specification for my argumentagainst Mill's application of majority tyranny to non-governmental actions of society.3.This argument lacks depth as a function of the fact that free will cannot be appropriatelyaddressed given space constraints of this forum. For the purposes of this discussion, "freewill" will mean the ability to make decisions for one's self.
An Evaluation of John Stuart Mill's Conception of Majority TyrannyAdam B SullivanPhilosophy and the Just SocietyHannibal Jackson
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...