PHIL. 410A:
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS FOR WEEKS #3 AND #4
ON MILL, HAYEK, AND SEN
[NOTE: In Chapter 1 of On Liberty, on page 18, line 2 (Prometheus edition),
"neither" should be "either". The sentence should read: “A person may cause evil to others not only
by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable
to them for the injury.”]
WEEK #3: Utilitarian
1. In Chapter 1, Mill
announces one simple principle and then gives three different versions of
it. What are they? One version of the principle is called the
Harm Principle (it is the only one with the word "harm" in it). What does Mill mean by "harm"? [Do not overlook his discussion of
"positive duties" on p. 17.
2. The third
version of Mill's principle defines a protected sphere of negative
liberty. How is the protected sphere
defined? How does Mill’s protected
sphere differ from Thomson’s natural claims?
3. Mill's argument
for liberty of thought and discussion is one of the most famous in political
philosophy. Actually, there is more than
one argument. Summarize Mill's
arguments. What empirical premises do
his arguments depend on? Are the
empirical premises true?
4. Does Mill
believe that the right to freedom of thought and discussion is absolute? Does he believe that limits on freedom of
expression are ever justified?
5. What does Mill
mean by "individuality"? He
gives two arguments for protecting rights to individuality. What are they?
WEEK #4:
1. Mill claims
that each individual has a private sphere of actions which only concern
herself/himself? How successful is he in
defending this claim? [Consider,
especially, the argument that begins at the bottom of page 90.] What empirical premises does it depend on?
2. In a Millian
society, would any drugs be illegal?
Which types of government regulation of drugs would be permissible, and
which would not? [Be sure to provide
citations to support your views.]
3. Sabbatarian
legislation. Mill opposes laws that
restrict recreational activities on Sunday but does not oppose laws that
restrict working on Sunday. What is the
difference?
4. Does Mill think
that people should be free to become slaves?
Why or why not?
5. Would Mill have
supported a right of those with terminal illnesses to commit suicide or to
obtain assistance in ending their lives?
Explain.
6. Hayek claims
that the only way to prevent coercion is by the threat of coercion (p.
21). Do you agree that government should
minimize coercion?
7.
Fallibilism. Both Mill and Hayek
are fallibilists—they believe that everyone should acknowledge that their
beliefs may be mistaken. Consider how
Mill and Hayek might reply to the following argument: If the you acknowledge that your own views
may be mistaken, why should anyone accept what you say about the advantages of
liberty? [Support your reply with
citations to the Mill and Hayek texts.]
8 Hayek believes
that progress = the growth of civilization = the growth of knowledge. Provide cites for this equivalence. What does he mean by knowledge?
9. According to
Hayek, what are the important elements of one's protected sphere? How does Hayek's account differ from
Thomson's? How does Hayek's account
differ from Mill's?
10. Economic
Progress Without Political Freedom. Is
Mill's advocacy of freedom of thought and discussion and of tolerating
individuality based on a mistake? When
Mill looked at 19th century British society, he was overwhelmed by the stifling
effects of conformity. When he wanted to
give his audience an example of the extreme of "the despotism of
custom", he pointed to "the East", particularly
11. One way of stating the argument for economic
progress over political freedom is to claim that "you can't eat a right to
freedom of expression or other political rights". Amartya Sen has done extensive research on
famines. Why does he believe that
freedom of expression and other political rights can help to eliminate famines?