Contacts
Info
Is it morally justifiable for a university president to fire a philosophy professor for leading a discussion in his classroom about the morality of pedophilia? Is it morally wrong for...
show more
Is it morally justifiable for a university president to fire a philosophy professor for leading a discussion in his classroom about the morality of pedophilia? Is it morally wrong for a man to walk to take off his clothes and walk naked on the public sidewalk during a warm day?
At the beginning of his 1859 book On Liberty, John Stuart Mill makes an important distinction between two ways that society uses in exercising power over the individual. The first is civil power, defined as “physical force in the form of legal penalties” (fines, jail, execution). The second is social power, defined as “the moral coercion of public opinion” (shunning, name-calling, social media accusations of wrongdoing). The question Mill raises is about the moral justification for exercising either of these types of power.
Another distinction Mill makes is between morally legitimate and morally illegitimate ways that the majority of the people in a sovereign nation have of interfering with the liberty of individuals. This is where the famous phrase “tyranny of the majority” is first used by Mill. A majority in a democracy can tyrannize a minority by passing laws that suppress their liberty, as happened in the confederate states of America in the form of slavery and later in the form of Jim Crow laws after the Civil War. Again, Mill raises a question about moral justification. When is it morally justifiable (morally right) for the majority to suppress the liberty of the minority and when is it morally wrong? When does the majority tyrannize the minority and when does it not?
In this podcast, we will divide our discussion of Mill’s On Liberty into several parts. First, Mill’s description and defense of the harm-to-others principle as the only justification for civil and social suppression or interference with civil and social liberty.
Second, Mill’s application of the harm principle to thought and expression (freedom of speech). Third, the application of the harm principle to individuality (acting out one’s life as one wants to act). I think that listeners will be surprised to learn that almost all the restrictions of individual liberty that we see and read about today are not only not new to Mill but have been imagined, discussed by and evaluated by him as morally right or wrong. What is important is not whether Mill has made the same moral evaluations that we would make but that Mill gives us a defensible basic moral principle that can be used to make our moral decisions and choices about speech and action.
Let me remind you that I will be reading from my book Understanding John Stuart Mill: The Smart Stiudent's Guide to Mill's Utilitarianism and On Liberty. Most of my followers tell me that it is easier to follow me when they have my book in their hands. You can purchase the book (at low cost) from the Amazon book store. Use the search words "Houlgate" and "On Liberty".
show less
At the beginning of his 1859 book On Liberty, John Stuart Mill makes an important distinction between two ways that society uses in exercising power over the individual. The first is civil power, defined as “physical force in the form of legal penalties” (fines, jail, execution). The second is social power, defined as “the moral coercion of public opinion” (shunning, name-calling, social media accusations of wrongdoing). The question Mill raises is about the moral justification for exercising either of these types of power.
Another distinction Mill makes is between morally legitimate and morally illegitimate ways that the majority of the people in a sovereign nation have of interfering with the liberty of individuals. This is where the famous phrase “tyranny of the majority” is first used by Mill. A majority in a democracy can tyrannize a minority by passing laws that suppress their liberty, as happened in the confederate states of America in the form of slavery and later in the form of Jim Crow laws after the Civil War. Again, Mill raises a question about moral justification. When is it morally justifiable (morally right) for the majority to suppress the liberty of the minority and when is it morally wrong? When does the majority tyrannize the minority and when does it not?
In this podcast, we will divide our discussion of Mill’s On Liberty into several parts. First, Mill’s description and defense of the harm-to-others principle as the only justification for civil and social suppression or interference with civil and social liberty.
Second, Mill’s application of the harm principle to thought and expression (freedom of speech). Third, the application of the harm principle to individuality (acting out one’s life as one wants to act). I think that listeners will be surprised to learn that almost all the restrictions of individual liberty that we see and read about today are not only not new to Mill but have been imagined, discussed by and evaluated by him as morally right or wrong. What is important is not whether Mill has made the same moral evaluations that we would make but that Mill gives us a defensible basic moral principle that can be used to make our moral decisions and choices about speech and action.
Let me remind you that I will be reading from my book Understanding John Stuart Mill: The Smart Stiudent's Guide to Mill's Utilitarianism and On Liberty. Most of my followers tell me that it is easier to follow me when they have my book in their hands. You can purchase the book (at low cost) from the Amazon book store. Use the search words "Houlgate" and "On Liberty".
-
Understanding J.S. Mill' ON LIBERTY, EP5. Historic Examples of Speech Suppression.
8 NOV 2023 · In this episode I give several examples of ancient, modern and contemporary controversies about the suppression of speech.15m 30s -
Understanding J.S. Mill's ON LIBERTY. EP4, Utility as the Justification of the Harm Principle
6 NOV 2023 · In this episode I explain Mill's distinction between three spheres of liberty that should not be prohibited by law of social pressure. They are: Liberty of conscience; liberty of tastes and pursuits; and liberty of combination (association) among individuals. I will also explain Mill's distinction between compelling persons from doing harm and compelling them to do acts of beneficence for others.11m 22s -
Children, Utility and the Harm-to-Others Principle
27 OCT 2023 · In this episode Mill explain why it is justifiable to restrict the liberty of children, mentally handicapped adults and people in backward societies for self-regarding harms. But the restriction must be for their benefit and not for the benefit of others (for example, slavery).16m 2s -
Mill's Harm-to-Others Principle
26 OCT 2023 · In Episode 2 of Understanding J.S. Mill's ON LIBERTY, Professor Houlgate explains Mill's famous Harm-to-Others Principle and compares it to three other principles: Harm-to-Self (Paternalism), Legal Moralism, and the Offense Principle. Mill argues that the only principle for justifiably restricting individual liberty is the Harm-to-Others Principle.15m 22s -
Introduction to On Liberty
7 OCT 2023 · John Stuart Mill begins his book On Liberty with an account of what he calls "The Tyranny of the Majority." He means "majority rule" and it refers to the power that a voting majority of people in a sovereign state have over a minority. It was once thought that majority rule is a good thing, the backbone of democracy. But Mill says, a majority can vote to suppress the liberty of a minority, as happened in the U.S.A. during the many years of slavery, and as continued to happen after the Civil War during the time of Jim Crow when a white majority made it impossible for a black minority to vote or to get a decent education. The question that Mill asks is normative. Under what conditions is it morally right for a majority to suppress the liberty of a minority?15m 36s
Is it morally justifiable for a university president to fire a philosophy professor for leading a discussion in his classroom about the morality of pedophilia? Is it morally wrong for...
show more
Is it morally justifiable for a university president to fire a philosophy professor for leading a discussion in his classroom about the morality of pedophilia? Is it morally wrong for a man to walk to take off his clothes and walk naked on the public sidewalk during a warm day?
At the beginning of his 1859 book On Liberty, John Stuart Mill makes an important distinction between two ways that society uses in exercising power over the individual. The first is civil power, defined as “physical force in the form of legal penalties” (fines, jail, execution). The second is social power, defined as “the moral coercion of public opinion” (shunning, name-calling, social media accusations of wrongdoing). The question Mill raises is about the moral justification for exercising either of these types of power.
Another distinction Mill makes is between morally legitimate and morally illegitimate ways that the majority of the people in a sovereign nation have of interfering with the liberty of individuals. This is where the famous phrase “tyranny of the majority” is first used by Mill. A majority in a democracy can tyrannize a minority by passing laws that suppress their liberty, as happened in the confederate states of America in the form of slavery and later in the form of Jim Crow laws after the Civil War. Again, Mill raises a question about moral justification. When is it morally justifiable (morally right) for the majority to suppress the liberty of the minority and when is it morally wrong? When does the majority tyrannize the minority and when does it not?
In this podcast, we will divide our discussion of Mill’s On Liberty into several parts. First, Mill’s description and defense of the harm-to-others principle as the only justification for civil and social suppression or interference with civil and social liberty.
Second, Mill’s application of the harm principle to thought and expression (freedom of speech). Third, the application of the harm principle to individuality (acting out one’s life as one wants to act). I think that listeners will be surprised to learn that almost all the restrictions of individual liberty that we see and read about today are not only not new to Mill but have been imagined, discussed by and evaluated by him as morally right or wrong. What is important is not whether Mill has made the same moral evaluations that we would make but that Mill gives us a defensible basic moral principle that can be used to make our moral decisions and choices about speech and action.
Let me remind you that I will be reading from my book Understanding John Stuart Mill: The Smart Stiudent's Guide to Mill's Utilitarianism and On Liberty. Most of my followers tell me that it is easier to follow me when they have my book in their hands. You can purchase the book (at low cost) from the Amazon book store. Use the search words "Houlgate" and "On Liberty".
show less
At the beginning of his 1859 book On Liberty, John Stuart Mill makes an important distinction between two ways that society uses in exercising power over the individual. The first is civil power, defined as “physical force in the form of legal penalties” (fines, jail, execution). The second is social power, defined as “the moral coercion of public opinion” (shunning, name-calling, social media accusations of wrongdoing). The question Mill raises is about the moral justification for exercising either of these types of power.
Another distinction Mill makes is between morally legitimate and morally illegitimate ways that the majority of the people in a sovereign nation have of interfering with the liberty of individuals. This is where the famous phrase “tyranny of the majority” is first used by Mill. A majority in a democracy can tyrannize a minority by passing laws that suppress their liberty, as happened in the confederate states of America in the form of slavery and later in the form of Jim Crow laws after the Civil War. Again, Mill raises a question about moral justification. When is it morally justifiable (morally right) for the majority to suppress the liberty of the minority and when is it morally wrong? When does the majority tyrannize the minority and when does it not?
In this podcast, we will divide our discussion of Mill’s On Liberty into several parts. First, Mill’s description and defense of the harm-to-others principle as the only justification for civil and social suppression or interference with civil and social liberty.
Second, Mill’s application of the harm principle to thought and expression (freedom of speech). Third, the application of the harm principle to individuality (acting out one’s life as one wants to act). I think that listeners will be surprised to learn that almost all the restrictions of individual liberty that we see and read about today are not only not new to Mill but have been imagined, discussed by and evaluated by him as morally right or wrong. What is important is not whether Mill has made the same moral evaluations that we would make but that Mill gives us a defensible basic moral principle that can be used to make our moral decisions and choices about speech and action.
Let me remind you that I will be reading from my book Understanding John Stuart Mill: The Smart Stiudent's Guide to Mill's Utilitarianism and On Liberty. Most of my followers tell me that it is easier to follow me when they have my book in their hands. You can purchase the book (at low cost) from the Amazon book store. Use the search words "Houlgate" and "On Liberty".
Information
| Author | Laurence Houlgate |
| Categories | Philosophy , Books , Self-Improvement |
| Website | www.houlgatebooks.com |
| ldhoulgate@yahoo.com |
Copyright 2024 - Spreaker Inc. an iHeartMedia Company
