ipl-logo

John Stuart Mill Freedom Of Speech Analysis

792 Words4 Pages

In this essay, I will discuss John Stuart Mill’s argument concerning government in relation to utilitarianism, and why freedom of speech is important. Utilitarianism is a form of philosophy that relies on moral systematic theories, which include principles that offer discussion. Utilitarianism is considered to be a version of consequentialism, which is that the morality of an action is determined exclusively by appeal to its consequences. The foundation that forms the premise of utilitarianism is contingent on two parts. One being from an account of utility or what is intrinsically good. The second part is the actual principle of utility. The principle of utility is used to help make moral decisions. Mill’s account of utility is based on the overall happiness of the majority. Mill states that, “it is by no means an indispensable condition to the acceptance of the utilitarian standard; for that standard is not the agent’s own greatest happiness, but the greatest happiness of altogether” (Mill Chapter 2,7). Producing the greatest amount of happiness in the greatest number of people is Mill’s qualitative measurement on an account of …show more content…

However, I feel that Mill’s harm principle is not efficient of specific enough to follow. There is a difference between free speech and hate speech. There are people who direct their speech to purposely harm others. This sort of speech should not be tolerated or allowed. By allowing people to express their hate in the form of speech, it would decrease the overall happiness of the majority. I think that in such cases the harm principle fails to clarify in the different kinds of speech that should be allowed. The freedom of speech is clearly important in a society to express themselves, but there are limits. The role of government should then be to protect our right to free speech and to control hate speech, which is harmful to

Show More
Related

  • Westboro Baptist Church Soldier's Funerals Summary

    1091 Words  | 5 Pages

    Whether laws intend to limit the offensive power of a minority or protect a minority from attacks, either way rights are lost. In the words of Roger Baldwin, founder of the civil liberties union, “In order to defend the people you like, you have to defend the people you hate.” Roger Baldwin’s statement indicates that if we limit the free speech of one group we ultimately limit our own freedoms. The first Amendment clearly states the limiting of any groups right is unconstitutional, “make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” The basis behind not allowing the government to define free speech allows Americans to create their own social order and among themselves determine what is acceptable.

    Read More

  • Political Theory: Joel Feinberg And John Stuart Mills

    1305 Words  | 6 Pages

    I will attempt to justify that John Stuart Mills approach to the argument of Freedom of Speech is the most valid, and the only instance where expression should be limited is where it causes an immediate harm or violation to the rights of others. I believe that expression should be limited when it causes harm to others or violates their rights. This view coincides with J.S Mill’s “Harm Principle”. I do not believe that hate speech should be prohibited as it merely

    Read More

  • Annotated Bibliography On Overcriminalizing Speech

    1204 Words  | 5 Pages

    The article argues that the courts should only view harmful speech in the same eyes and rule them the same as if they were conduct harms. The source then discusses how many scholars believe that freedom of speech only applies when the benefits outweigh the harms, regarding what is being said. The article does a good job of approaching the problem through a semi-neutral lens. The article clearly lets its opinion be known at times; however, it approaches the opposite side of the argument in a fair manner. The article will be incredibly beneficial because it discusses when freedom of speech should not apply with a neutral approach.

    Read More

  • Comparing Mill And Kant's Theories

    714 Words  | 3 Pages

    Mill and Kant have opposite idea and they support different moral philosophies. Mill exactly suppose the idea of social thinking, namely he claims that everyone attach an importance to other human beings. However, Kant considers that selfishness reflect people’s characteristics, in other words, each person should pay attention to themselves not others, because the most important thing for them is themselves. Kant also highlight that people can only behave in a good manner, if they have good will. In other words, Kant attach an importance to people’s instinct or characteristics, Mill gives weight to promoting happiness and dissolution of the pain.

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mill Assisted Suicide Analysis

    1384 Words  | 6 Pages

    John Stuart Mill was a philosopher, political economist and civil servant in the 19th century . Mill is a Liberalist, which means that he believed that the government should not influence our personal choices as equal citizens of a society. John Mill was also a Utilitarian,

    Read More

  • Charles Lawrence Racist Speech Summary

    770 Words  | 4 Pages

    Borders of the First Amendment are at the center of the legal debates about free speech and hate speech. While free speech is considered to be a basic right, as the Supreme Court has given the right to free speech. However, when such "free speech" crosses the line and becomes a threat, the courts have stepped in and punished the speaker. First Amendment does not protect free speech that has the intention of doing harm or damage.

    Read More

  • The Argument Against Hate Speech

    1527 Words  | 7 Pages

    Flames, teargas, riots, city blocks destroyed, in consequence to a statement. In today 's modern society, rude acts of communication known as hate speech, have become a controversial topic in America. Although hate speech is awful, it should be protected by the first amendment. Hate speech should be permitted because omitting such phrases would set a precedent for censorship and repress the minority. Such censorship would lead to a totalitarian rule by the majority .

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Character And Ecstasy: Against The Legalization Of Drugs

    550 Words  | 3 Pages

    Utilitarianism is the moral theory that says we should do what creates the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of individuals. Philosopher John Stuart Mill described the Principle of Utility as follows: “actions are right in proportion as they tend to maximize happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure” (p. 144). Utilitarian analysis shows that prohibition of hard drugs maximizes happiness or “utility”.

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay: The First Amendment

    1228 Words  | 5 Pages

    Abuse of freedom of speech can be defined as hate speech or such speech that instigates and can create many negative impacts. Rosenbaum highlights research that shows “participants who were subjected to both physical and emotional pain, that emotional harm is equal in intensity to that experienced by the body and is even more long-lasting and traumatic” (1125). In the case of discriminatory language, if truly it is problematic, then some form of law limits and restricts it. While it is said that hate speech can cause negative effects on one’s mental and physical health, it was never isolated to be the sole cause of these impacts. Although hate speech may contribute, it is unreasonable to blame emotional harm on hate speech as the world arguably contains plenty of negative things that people are exposed to daily and can easily poison someone’s mind.

    Read More

  • Racist Speech As The Functional Equivalent Of Fighting Words

    707 Words  | 3 Pages

    The First Amendment aims to protect the right of freedom of religion and the right of freedom of expression of all United States citizens. However, Lawrence states “The Supreme Court has held that words that ‘by their very utterance inflict injury or intend to incite an immediate breach of the peace’ are not constitutionally protected.” (Lawrence, pg 175) The First Amendment does not protect speech that maintains a sole purpose to inflict harm on other people. “Racial insults are undeserving for First Amendment protection because the perpetrator’s intention is not to discover truth or initiate dialogue, but to injure the victim” (Lawrence, pg 175)

    Read More

  • Analysis Of The Stormy Mind Of John Stuart Mill

    1104 Words  | 5 Pages

    It was not until Mill’s late teens that he began to study Jeremy Bentham and his utilitarianism theory. “Reading Bentham satisfied Mill’s cravings for scientific precision and gave him a new way of looking at social intercourse” (Buchholz 97). Mill became so intrigued with Bentham that he decided to preach the Benthamite gospel in the Westminster Review, a publication started by his father and Jeremy Bentham. Mill’s views soon changed as he grew older. It is said that Mill had a mid-life crisis at the age of twenty because he took the Bentamite precision too far and actually forgot the ultimate goal of Utilitarianism in the first place, happiness.

    Read More

  • Summary Of John Stuart Mill's Consideration On Representative Government

    1128 Words  | 5 Pages

    Introduction: John Stuart Mill essay on Consideration On representative Government, is an argument for representative government. The ideal form of government in Mill's opinion. One of the more notable ideas Mill is that the business of government representatives is not to make legislation. Instead Mill suggests that representative bodies such as parliaments and senates are best suited to be places of public debate on the various opinions held by the population and to act as watchdogs of the professionals who create and administer laws and policy.

    Read More

  • Should Hate Speech And Should It Be Protected Under The First Amendment?

    285 Words  | 2 Pages

    Although hate speech is bigoted, hate-mongering, and can potentially lead to hate crimes, it should still be considered free speech. If citizens of the United States are not allowed to be verbal about their beliefs, whether or not they are offensive and hateful, then there is no use in allowing free speech. Placing limitations on free speech contradicts the First Amendment, therefore making it inaccurate and useless.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Hate Speech

    1152 Words  | 5 Pages

    The ability to speak freely is written in the bill of rights and has been preserved for decades, but when free speech turns into hate speech it brings up the widely deliberated issue about banning hate speech. There are many different perspectives on the issue of hate speech. Author of Hate Speech is Free Speech, Gov. Dean and Law professor, Glenn Harlan Reynolds, applies a strong historical perspective on the situation arguing that people are “constitutionally illiter[ate]” when they make the claim that hate speech is not part of the First Amendment. Believing that it is impossible to ban hate speech because everyone will always disagree with any idea, Reynolds focuses on the problems with banning hate speech and what might happen if hate

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay On Freedom Of Speech

    817 Words  | 4 Pages

    We can’t misuse the freedom of speech, saying words that can cause serious harm (bullying). This form of speech will cause depression, suicide, and stunted social development. When freedom of speech hurts others, then it is not just an opinion anymore; it is a form of hate

    Read More

More about John Stuart Mill Freedom Of Speech Analysis

Open Document