Mill’s first argument which supports his concept of negative freedom is the harm principle. This means the absence of social interference which thereby allows for the individual to focus solely on his pursuit of eudaimon progress. Mill’s defines the harm principle’s aim as “to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant”, therefore it is the absence of intrusion by others which is Mill’s regards as a threat to an individual’s personal liberty. Furthermore, Mill believes in a state which does not intrude upon an individual’s life as contrary to this it may harm an individual’s liberty. Mill states: ‘the individual ought to be free from all forms of coercion if his action does not harm others’, which further reiterates his stance that as long as an individual does not harm another’s liberty, then their own personal liberty should not be harmed. An example of negative liberty is: one man should not hit another man as this is in direct violation of his freedom from harm, or the state should not allow laws such as SOPA because it intrudes upon the individual’s personal liberty.
Mill’s second argument to support his negative concept of liberty is that censoring an opinion may deprive us of the truth.Throughout history, the majority has suppressed the minority and consequently denied society of the truth: for example Galileo was suppressed by the church, despite his argument being true. In relation to this point, Mill wrote ‘To refuse a hearing to an opinion because they are sure that it is false is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty’, this quote from Mill supports the example of Galileo because the church denied Galileo his liberty of freedom of speech and consequently, the church held back man kind for several hundreds of years, so in this case censoring an opinion has denied us of the truth. Furthermore, it is only through reasoned discussion that society can flourish, and this can only come about by freedom of speech.
The third argument to support Mill’s concept of negative liberty is that without free debate our true beliefs will become prejudices, or ‘dead dogmas’. A ‘dead dogma’ is when a belief or idea has been ingrained into a society’s mindset for so long, that the belief or idea is now being blindly accepted as a ‘living truth’ by society. If the minorities opinions are not protected from ‘the tyranny of the majority’ than certain codes and beliefs may become blindly accepted ‘as a prejudice, a belief independent of, and proof against argument’ in the future. Mill shows that the degeneration of freedom of speech is ‘illustrated in the experience of almost all ethical doctrines and religious creeds’; however as controversy has died down, the ‘ethical doctrines and religious creeds’ have been reduced to a ‘dead dogma’. The problem with ‘dead dogmas’ is that they may produce negative results and counteract any form of eudaimon human flourishing. Mill believes that because of this idea, negative liberties are essential to stop any form of ‘dead dogma’ being formed, if an individual is able to argue their opinion than there will be change within society which will be able to maximise the greatest happiness to the greatest number.
In conclusion Mill produces to the reader a firm defence of negative liberty, Mill is wary of power to a small minority or the majority and therefore believes that an individual should be free from such possible intrusions. Mill presents the harm principle, explains how censoring an opinion may deprive us of the truth and how ‘dead dogmas’ to illustrate his concept of negative liberty. With regards to Mill explaining how censoring an opinion may deprive us of the truth, and how ‘dead dogmas’ come to prominence in society, history illustrates both of these ideas to be true.
by
fpt123 (student)
