MILL'S "SIMPLE" PRINCIPLE
II. “[T]he 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.”(p. 16)
III. “[T]here is a sphere of action in which
society, as distinguished from the individual, has, if any, only an indirect
interest; comprehending all that portion of a person's life and conduct which
affects only himself, or, if it also affects others, only with their free,
voluntary, and undeceived consent and participation. When I say only himself,
I mean directly . . . .”(p. 18)
JOHN STUART MILL'S UTILITARIAN DEFENSE OF RIGHTS
The Greatest Happiness
Principle: "[A]ctions
are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend
to produce the reverse of happiness."(from Utilitarianism)
Mill’s Indirect Utilitarian
Account of Rights: "To have a
right, then, is, I conceive, to have something which society ought to defend me
in the possession of. If the objector
goes on to ask why it ought, I can give him no other reason than general
utility." (from Utilitarianism)
DIRECT (ACT) UTILITARIANISM VS. INDIRECT (RULE/SOCIAL
PRACTICE) UTILITARIANISM
Act Utilitarianism requires that everyone always choose the act that
they believe will maximize overall happiness.
Act utilitarianism is also called direct utilitarianism, because
it recommends applying the utilitarian formula directly to each act.
Mill's Rule/Social
Practice Utilitarianism requires that we foster systems of laws or social
practices that will maximize overall utility when people generally follow
them. Rule or social practice
utilitarianism is also called indirect utilitarianism, because it does
not recommend applying the utilitarian formula directly to each act.
MILL'S THREE MAIN ARGUMENTS FOR FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND
EXPRESSION, A WEAK FOURTH ARGUMENT (AND AN IMPORTANT FIFTH)
I. The Assumption of Infallibility Argument
(Marcus Aurelius Argument)
[Note that this argument also includes support for a related
argument, which appears below as V.]
II. The Rational Grounds Argument (
III. The Dead Beliefs Argument. [This is a weaker argument.]
IV. The Portion of the Truth Argument.
V. The Potential for Abuse Argument
THE "FREE
GIVE-AND-TAKE OF OPINION" CONCEPTION OF RATIONAL BELIEF
"There is the greatest
difference between presuming an opinion to be true, because, with every
opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth
for the purpose of not permitting its refutation."(Chap. 2, p. 26)
All these arguments are
arguments apply to statements with propositional content (can be true or
false). They are based on what has been
called a "free market of ideas" rationale. Mill extends the discussion to argue against
legal restrictions on statements with only expressive content—"invective,
sarcasm, personality, and the like"—on pp. 61-63.
Note that the free market of
ideas rationale only applies to conscientious speech—that is, speech in which
one expresses what one believes to be true.
There are other types of speech that do not get support from Mill's
arguments or from the underlying rationale.
Is Mill's right to freedom of
discussion absolute?
MILL'S TWO MAIN ARGUMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALITY
I. The Principal Ingredient of Human Happiness
Argument. This is an a priori argument,
justifying individuality by making it a necessary condition for human happiness.
II. The Principal Ingredient of Social
Progress Argument. This is an empirical
argument, justifying individuality by the indirect effects of people who are
individualistic on people who are not individualistic. Mill gives this argument an elitist
feel. Hayek will give a non-elitist
version of the argument and extend it to economic progress.
HAYEK'S NON-ELITIST ACCOUNT
OF THE RELATION BETWEEN FREEDOM AND PROGRESS
Freedom = lack of coercion
What is coercion?
(Fraud and deception included
for the same reasons.)
What is in Hayek's protected
sphere?
(What about Thomson's claims
against, murder, physical and psychological impairment, etc.?)
For Hayek, a free society =
one that minimizes coercion, broadly understood.
DESCRIPTIVE
HAYEK VS. NORMATIVE HAYEK
The Descriptive Hayek is just
describing an irresistible social process of move toward free societies and
progress.
Normative Hayek wants to
justify a free society by it contribution to progress.
Does Normative Hayek try to
justify a free society directly?
Normative Hayek's indirect
justification:
A free society is essential
for progress.
WHAT IS PROGRESS?
Progress = Growth of
Civilization
Growth of Civilization =
Growth of Knowledge
Therefore, Progress = Growth
of Knowledge
What does Hayek mean by Knowledge?
MILL ON PATERNALISM
Legal Paternalism
refers to laws that are paternalistic.
A law is paternalistic
just in case it is enacted to promote the good of the target audience by overruling
their own judgment about what is good for them.
So what makes a law paternalistic is the rationale for the law.
1. Distinguish paternalistic
rationales from Collective Action Problems.
COLLECTIVE ACTION
PROBLEMS
I. Terminology
1. INDIVIDUALISTICALLY RATIONAL (IR) = to
Maximize One's Expected Return (Total Expected Benefits Less Total Expected
Costs). This sense of rationality is the
twentieth-century development of the concept of INSTRUMENTAL RATIONALITY. It is the notion of rationality that is
employed in economics and the other social sciences. (Note that to be INDIVIDUALISTICALLY RATIONAL
does not require that one be an egoist.)
2. COLLECTIVE ACTION PROBLEM = A situation in
which everyone (in a given group) has a choice between two alternatives and
where, if everyone involved chooses the alternative act that is
Individualistically Rational (IR), the outcome will be worse for everyone
involved, in their own estimation, than it would be if they were all to choose
the other alternative (i.e., than it would be if they were all to choose the
alternative that is not IR).
By convention, in any Collective Action
Problem, the economically rational alternative is referred to as
"Defection" ("D"); and the economically irrational
alternative is referred to as "Cooperation" ("C").
MATRIX REPRESENTATION OF THE FORM OF A COLLECTIVE ACTION
PROBLEM
Everyone else
|
|
Cooperates (C) |
Defects (D) |
|
I Cooperate (C) |
+100, +100 |
-101, -99.9 |
|
I Defect (D) |
+101, +99.9 |
-100, -100 |
Matrix 2. A Collective Action Problem Involving A
Decision to Cooperate (C) or Defect (D).
FREERIDING. In a Collective Action Problem in which most agents
choose to Cooperate, Defectors are referred to as FREERIDERS, because they
benefit from the Cooperation of others, but are unwilling to reciprocate
Cooperation.
Compare Mill's exception
for positive acts "to bear his fair share in the common defence, or in any other joint work necessary to the
interest of the society of which he enjoys the protection"(17) and his
discussion of a secular justification for Sabbatarian
legislation that guarantees the benefits of a six-day work week to all by prohibiting
a seven-day work week. What other laws
does this sort of justification apply to?
2. What is Mill's main argument
for freedom from legal paternalism?
KEY: the claim of first-person authority (Talbott's
name for it): Given the appropriate
background conditions (including guarantees of freedom of thought and
discussion and freedom of the press) normal, adult human beings are reliable
judges of their own good; and more reliable than other people or governments.
Consider Mill's examples.
3. What about the
4. Exceptions:
(a) the
dangerous bridge
(b) offenses
against decency
(b) slavery
contracts
Lee Kwan Yew as a Benevolent
Autocrat:
A Challenge to Mill
Consider how Lee has
improved life in
A Reply to Lee Based on
Sen's Work on How Rights Prevent Famines
Do food shortages by themselves cause famines?
Sen's
surprising answer: No. Food shortages don't cause famines in
societies with:
(1) freedom of the press and freedom of
expression;
(2) a multi-party democracy with an active opposition.