100%(5)5 out of 5 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 12 pages.
On LibertyJohn Stuart MillMill first contends that society is warranted in restricting individual liverty only if anaction is harmful to others. NEVER because the action is harmful to the person doingthe actions. Essentially UTIL based.“That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to other’s. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”This only applies to human beings in the maturity of their lives. Must be independent and in right state of mind.MillLimiting freedom of expression only ok when harmful to othersoNot applied to childrenUses utilitarian principle and harm to others principleoNo harm to usImmorality and paternalism principles don’t work and offence principle questionableSuppressing someone’s opinions:oSuppressors deny opinion’s truth, but have no authority to decide for all mankind, (others can judge for themselves if suppressed), assuming they have absolute certaintyoEven if the opinion is false, if it suppressed the wholetruth wont be known, need the contrasting opinions to be a living truthoIf someone doesn’t know all the sides of the opinions, can't make a grounded opinion for themselvesoPlus the suppressed opinion could be true (or partially), they true would be denied to othersGoes on and on about how opinions are important and how suppressing them can not only lead to the loss of ideas and possible truths, but the language, foundational ideas and concepts that come with them as well.Pg 233 bottom = summary of opinion part.Problems: 1)Lecturer doesn’t like that Mill never touches on hate speech, and 2)he never says the age paternalistic laws can no longer be applied to children. 3)there is no clear line that can be drawn regarding what harms other people. Technically almost every decision an individual makes affects the society in some way.
The Question of HarmThe Attorney General’s Commission on PornographyPorn that is violent and degrading or non-violent and degrading – Bears a casual relatiohnship to undesirable attiduinal changes and to acts of sexual violence.Multiples reasons cause sexual discrimination and volence. All the paperis trying to show is that without porn, their would be less.“When clinical and experimental research has focused particularly on sexually violent material, the conclusions have been virtually unanimous. In both clinical and experimental settings, exposure to sexually violent materials has indicated an increases in the likelihood of aggression.”Because we can safely make the assumption that an increase in sexual aggression will lead to an increase chance of sexual violence. Through the transitive property, we can conclude that exposure to sexually violent materials bear a casual relationship to antisocial acts of sexual violence and for some subgroups, possible to unlawful acts of sexual violence.