Transcript Mill on freedom

Mill on democracy
Michael Lacewing
© Michael Lacewing
Stages towards democracy: I
• Before democracy: struggle between
rulers and ruled
– Liberty as ‘protection against the tyranny
of the political rulers’ through limitations
on power of government, political rights,
balance of power
– Power of state to protect against enemies
remains, but power to exploit the ruled is
limited
Stages towards democracy:
II
• Democracy: the ruled elect the rulers
for a fixed period of time
– Interests of rulers should be interests of
ruled
– Liberty = self-government
– Power of state is ‘lent’ to government by
the people, and used to express the will
of the people
Stages towards democracy:
III
• Tyranny is no longer the rulers dominating
the people, because the people rule.
• But democratic rulers = majority, not the
ruled. The new danger is tyranny of the
majority. So
– Liberty = limiting powers of democratic
government, e.g. by rights
– Power to express will of the majority is
restricted
Stages of democracy: IV
• Recognition that power of majority can
be exercised socially through prevailing
opinion and feeling’
– Liberty requires limiting power of
collective opinion
– Power is not just of state, but of society –
power of state used to restrict power of
society
Social tyranny
• Tyranny of the majority can lead to illiberal
laws, e.g. against certain religions.
• But it can also be social tyranny, through
socially-endorsed preferences and ways of
living, disapproval and offence:
– ‘It leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating
much more deeply into the details of life, and
enslaving the soul itself.’
• This is also the effect of ‘custom’.
Limiting social tyranny
• Self-regulation: society accepts that
public opinion should not be oppressive
• State regulation: punishing abuses of
public opinion
• The difficulty is interfering with
freedom of expression.
Challenges
• Mill accepts that social opinion and feeling
are necessary to enforce morality:
– ‘The acts of an individual may be hurtful to
others or wanting in due consideration for their
welfare, without going to the length of violating
any of their constituted rights. The offender may
then be justly punished by opinion, though not by
law.’
• Morality needs to be distinguished from
offence – but can we draw a clear
distinction?
The Harm (aka Liberty)
Principle
• ‘The only purpose for which power can be
rightfully exercised over any member of a
civilized community, against his will, is to
prevent harm to others. His own good,
either physical or moral, is not a sufficient
warrant.’
• If morality is not exhausted by ‘harm’, then
how can we justifiably use social opinion to
regulate moral behaviour?
Morality and offence
• Mill’s view:
– It makes a vast difference both in our feelings
and in our conduct towards [someone] whether
he displeases us in things in which we think we
have a right to control him or in things in which
we know that we have not.
• It is only the ‘right’ morality (based on
harm) that we can enforce. Morality that
does not distinguish harm from offence is
mistaken.
Lord Devlin’s argument
• ‘The suppression of vice is as much the law’s
business as the suppression of subversive
activities; it is no more possible to define a
sphere of private morality than it is to define
one of private subversive activity.’
• ‘It is wrong to talk of private morality or of the
law not being concerned with immorality as
such or to try to set rigid bounds to the part
which the law may play in the suppression of
vice. There…can be no theoretical limits to
legislation against immorality.’
Lord Devlin’s argument
• ‘You may argue that if a man’s sins affect only
himself it cannot be the concern of society. If
he chooses to get drunk every night in the
privacy of his own home, is anyone except
himself the worse for it? But suppose a quarter
or a half of the population got drunk every
night, what sort of society would it be? You
cannot set a theoretical limit to the number of
people who can get drunk before society is
entitled to legislate against drunkenness.’
Lord Devlin’s argument
outlined
• Morality is essential to the welfare of
society.
• Morality is social, not private.
• It is the business of government to look
after the welfare of society.
• So it is legitimate for government to pass
laws on the basis of preserving moral
values.