MILL'S "SIMPLE" PRINCIPLE

I. “[T]he sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.”(p. 16)

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)

MILL'S THREE MAIN ARGUMENTS FOR FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION (AND AN IMPORTANT FOURTH)

I. The Assumption of Infallibility Argument (Marcus Aurelius Argument)

[Note that this argument also includes support for a related argument, which appears below as IV.]

II. The Rational Grounds Argument (Cicero Argument)

[Note that the "dead beliefs" argument is related to this one, but it is a much weaker argument.]

III. The Portion of the Truth Argument.

IV. The Potential for Abuse Argument

THE "FREE MARKET OF IDEAS" 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)

MILL'S THREE MAIN ARGUMENTS FOR FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION

I. The Assumption of Infallibility Argument (Marcus Aurelius Argument)

Note that this argument also includes support for a related argument: The Potential for Abuse Argument.

II. The Rational Grounds Argument (Cicero Argument)

[Note that the "dead beliefs" argument is related to this one, but it is a much weaker argument.]

III. The Portion of the Truth Argument.

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.

Later we will see that there is some reason to think that Mill's arguments apply only to one category of speech—conscientious speech—that is, speech in which one expresses what one believes to be true. We will find that there are other types of speech that do not get support from Mill's arguments or from the underlying rationale.

MILL'S TWO MAIN ARGUMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALITY

I. The Principal Ingredient of Human Happiness Argument. This is a Direct Consequentialist Argument, justifying individuality by the direct effects of being individualistic on people who are individualistic. Weak empirical argument.

II. The Principal Ingredient of Social Progress Argument. This is an Indirect Consequentialist Argument, justifying individuality by the indirect effects of people who are individualistic on people who are not individualistic. Hayek will extend this argument to economic progress.