Since
time in memorial, the problematic of freedom has been at the centre of discussion
of many people. This arose as a result of different phenomenon man was
observing in his surroundings. Hence some of the various questions he was
posing were whether he is living a free life or a determined one? Whether his
life has no other purposes than to follow moral laws traced by the society?
Whether he can live contrary to the natural laws? etc. Following the course of
history, freedom can to be a complex concept, extended to diverse areas, which
a single definition cannot satisfy.
My motive in this kind of
enterprise arises form my impression that the dignity of the human person and
the responsibility of human freedom when it comes to the point of expression
are somehow minimized or obscured. Many cases happened and still happen proving
indeed that there is a crisis of freedom of expression in many places in the
world. We should refer to the twenty years that passed after the cruel First
World War and the later revelation of Nazi and Soviet concentration camps.
Moreover, we still cannot forget the oppression of freedom of world dimension,
perhaps the ugliest of all time, which happened in our own lifetime.
To accommodate the topic at
hand, the paper is divided into three chapters. In the first chapter, the
hermeneutic method has been employed to sort out some points showing how the
notion of freedom was conceived in general from the classical period up to the
contemporary period. In doing so the paper will emphasize some prominent
figures in the history of philosophy in accordance with the period in which
they lived. In the second chapter the historical analysis method has been
employed to trace Mill’s freedom of expression. Freedom of expression
should be understood as the right of each individual to express his thoughts
without any interference. The third chapter comprises a synthetic formulation
from the two chapters.
The attitude, which
undermines the importance of freedom of expression for human development, is
extremely important in our African situation and more particularly in Democratic
Republic of Congo. People lack freedom of expression and their free expression
is stifled by their poverty and by autocratic regimes. This is one of the
reasons, which makes my research necessary to enlighten me on freedom of
expression.
The main sources in this
paper have been the works of Stuart Mill especially: On Liberty, Utilitarianism and
Political Philosophy of Mill. Other books and commentaries have been used for
better clarity on the topic. I accept to be criticised by any one who will find
the topic very interesting and I think he may say much more than I do.
1. General Understanding of Freedom
Generally
speaking, the main concern of this chapter will focus on the general
understanding of the concept freedom, which may be conveniently divided into:
Classical Period, Medieval Period, Modern Period and Contemporary Period. This
chapter will try to show the various meaning of freedom according to different
philosophers from classical period up to Contemporary period. In Classical period:
Plato and Aristotle; in Medieval period: Augustine and Thomas Aquinas; in
Modern period: Descartes and Kant; and in Contemporary period J.P Sartre. In
fact since the beginning of the history of philosophy, the notion of freedom
was very complex and general. Let us discover it in the following paragraphs.
Plato did not speak really about
freedom in an explicit sense. But in reading some philosophers of this period, we
find some notions that could correspond to freedom. Plato was impressed by the
idea of servitude that was seen as liberation internal to man. “Freedom
was the fulfilment of the reasoning subject by the internal domination of
reason.”
Man possesses the rational capacity, which helps him to reach freedom. Plato,
in speaking about the rational capacity that makes man free distinguishes
between the classes. And this distinction of social classes made people to be
different from each other. Such kind of distinction shows us clearly that
people were not free themselves. Some were considered as the best and more
important than others who had a considerably greater right of expression than
others. They had even more power than
the other.
In Plato’s conception
of society, women were not considered with much esteem. They were qualified as
the guardians under the guidance of government. Freedom, more especially,
freedom of expression in Plato’s conception was determined by one’s
intellectual capacity. Men are not independent of each other but they cooperate
with one another in order to produce the necessaries for the common good of the
society. Each and everyone exercise his freedom in his social class for the
common good but those who possess the intellectual capacity are the ones who
should be over the others because they possess knowledge. Plato speaks of the
ideal community in which each individual should contribute and participate in
order to reach the common good.
Aristotle described the
notion of freedom in comparison with the actual society. “The parts of
household management correspond to the person who composed the household. A
complete household consists of slaves and freemen.”
The society is composed of men, women and children and none of them are equal
and free. Man in Aristotle’s view is considered as a master of the
society and he is the one who should rule. No one could pretend to be over him.
Aristotle emphasizes the authority of man in the society and neglects the
presence of women. Women in Aristotle’s conception are considered as
slaves depending totally on their masters.
The masters have the power
of doing violence and one superior in brute strength while women are there just
to obey everything from their masters because men are the only ones who can be
free and exercise their freedom over the slaves. The male children have
something to say in the society but they are still immature in many things.
They are not totally considered as salves. The freemen manifest their freedom
in commanding and imposing their viewpoints to others. Indeed, Aristotle
distinguishes two kinds of classes. The first class belongs to the slaves who
always have to be under the control of the others where as the second class is
the class of freemen, who possess power. This implies that there is a
“giving order” process to one side and a “following
order” on the other side.
Saint
Augustine
(354-430)
Augustine tried to explain
explicitly the notion of freedom in using two Latin words: liberum arbitrium
and libertas. Man by nature was created by God to be free and to have dominion
and power over all other creatures but not over his fellow man. The lack of
freedom is a kind of slavery, which does not exist at all in God’s will.
Man possesses in him liberum and libertas. The choice to be disobedient in the
garden led him to the loss of libertas. When man lost his freedom, he became a
slave of sin because he had been created freely. By using badly his libertas,
he discovers that he is not free. His freedom is dying to sin. “ By
nature, as God created us, no one is the slave either of man or of sin. This
servitude is, however, penal, and is appointed by the law which enjoins the
preservation of natural order and forbids its disturbance.”
God’s will in creating us was that we could live equal and free. No one
should pretend to be superior over another so that we can reach this liberum
arbitrium and libertas.
Augustine seems to assume
that even now the individuals are in possession of this liberum arbitrium
though it is weak or diminished. There is still some autonomy left to the will
in such a way that one can even choose a disordered love, something that God in
no way causes directly. God seems to be a co-causer of good choices only. In
the performance of evil actions one merely says no to God’s will. Church
fathers and great theologians of the middle Ages were thoroughly aware of a
double problem that existed on the notion of freedom. That is, The libertas Christiana (the freedom of
Christians), as the primacy of grace, and the liberum arbitrium as the more
limited question of our human free will inside the moment of grace. God’s
will is to see the individuals equal so that they can reach the heavenly home.
This should follow that in the same line of their freedom, they should have the
facilities to express themselves in a very free way.
In his philosophy of
freedom, St Thomas seems to bring out some clarifications. Thomas
speaks about the state of innocence in comparison to freedom of expression. The
state of innocence is the only real state, in which people are equal and free
and no one has authority over the other. St Thomas used the term liberty
instead of using freedom, which have the same meaning. “ Liberty is one of the chief goods
and would not have been lacking in the state of innocence.”
Equality and freedom are the elements that promote the common good of the state
of innocence. Each individual should be free in acting as a freeman and keep
him alive. Thomas did not consider mastership as a concept opposed to slavery.
This is in the sense that the master has to consider the slave as his equal
though logically speaking; the slave has to be subjected to him. In other words,
there are neither masters nor slaves in the state of innocence otherwise we
could not talk about equality of people and liberty more especially on the
expressive level. “Man is the master of a free subject by directing him
either towards his proper welfare, or to the common good and such kind of
mastership have existed in the state of innocence between man and man.”
Man by nature was born free and the state of innocence helps him to develop and
to use his freedom in the proper way for the common good and to promote a good
life in the society. Although we were created differently, some with many
talents and others without, those having should use their talents as a precious
gift that conduced to the benefit of others and the promotion of the society.
In Descartes’ view, freedom of expression is no
longer the result of harmony cooperation between the intellect and will, but is
the expression of a blind will to do, to act. In speaking of freedom Descartes
refers to God and to man. Freedom is the greatest perfection of man. When we
are thinking of freedom in God, truly speaking, this means the absolute
freedom, which is operated with essences and truths as well as with the
existences. “Freedom is in some way infinite in man too; in the way it is
in him the mark of the creator. Man can oppose the clearly known good simply to
assert his freedom.”
Indeed, the notion of freedom is based on the intellect and will in order to
prove the existence of God. In fact, man is considered as a mediator of this.
The reason is that while the human intellect is finite, it is proper to the
nature of will to have a very large aperture, and the perfection of man is of
acting freely and consciously. This freedom is in our will that which help us
to choose and use our freedom properly as human being. According to Descartes
this notion of freedom is innate to us.
In speaking
of freedom of expression Kant tries to understand it through human society as
an environment in which men are born and exercise independently their notion of
right and their expression. In that society, there should be a law, which
everyone should follow.
“There is, indeed, an
innate equality belonging to every man which consists in his right to be
independent of being bound by others to anything more than that to which he may
also reciprocally bind them.”
Equality and freedom constitute the key points of the universal law.
Furthermore, human freedom is caused by his
free will. The will to do whatever he wants even to create his moral law that
he can only follow himself rather than to be imposed by someone else. This is
because all are equal and free in using their expression; no one has power on
the other in the society. Everybody has something to say and within or outside
the society. In a clearer way, the power does not belong to particular
individual in the society rather everyone has the power as a member of common
wealth. Kant concludes that according to the way things appear to us in the
society, we are not free (phenomena), our actions are determined and yet we
must believe that the way things really are, we are free (noumenon).
For Sartre Freedom is not only the foundation of man’s essence but also the
reason for which values, ends and objects are present in the world. By his
freely chosen projects, man puts order into the things of the world, he makes
the world a universe and he alone gives meaning to being. Sartre stresses a
little on the problem of freedom of man. If man lacks consciousness, his life
is obviously not free. “What we call freedom is, thus, impossible to
distinguish from being of the human reality.”
Man exists first and has the capacity to make his essence. Human freedom
precedes the essence and makes it possible.
That is why Sartre states
“existence precedes essence.”
Man possesses the capacity to make himself to become dependent of himself in
connection with his own choice. In Sartre’s conception, man is condemned
to be free. No one can choose to be free or not to be. By nature man is free in
the sense that he is conscious of his own existence and of all things of the
world. Therefore man is totally free. He can give a reason for his own
existence by consciously making himself to be a kind of man he has freely
decided to be. It is clear that human freedom is to be upheld in order to
create a value that could be based on the society. Freedom in Sartre’s
view is one of the essential elements of man, which helps him to make a
distinction between man described as pure act, and his freedom is designated as
absolute.
In conclusion, the concept
freedom has various meaning as we have seen so far according to its periods.
The classical thinkers oriented their attention on moral freedom while in the
medieval period freedom has got another meaning, which is freedom in God in
calling men to salvation. However, in Modern period, freedom has got another
significance with Kant who conceived it as an attribute of the noumenal or
intelligible self and in Contemporary period, the concept freedom was much used
with different meaning. Freedom was understood by Sartre as consciousness and
defines human essence.
Going with this
understanding, there is a possibility to say that this understanding was not
enough for individual’s life. In the following chapter, the main concern
will be freedom of expression in Mill’s understanding. In this chapter,
freedom of expression should be understood as the right of an individual to
express or communicate in a more or less public way his view without
interference from other individuals or groups with authority. That is the way freedom
of expression should be understood. Mill was much influenced by the theory of
the greatest happiness, which led all Utilitarians to speak about human
freedom.
Truly speaking, Mill was concerned
with the problem of society as was Bentham especially by showing how the
individual and the government should be related. It is out of this context that
Mill has tried to develop his philosophical understanding of freedom of
expression, which is the main concern of this essay. Thus, this chapter will
survey the individual’s freedom of expression, social freedom of
expression and political freedom of expression. However, for a better
understanding of these notions, we should turn to Mill’s historical
background, his writings and belief, and his unique version of Utilitarianism.
John Stuart Mill was born
in 1806. He had an
intense private education offered by his father James Mill, the stern
Utilitarian. Mill at the age of three learned Greek; at seven he studied the Dialogue
of Plato; at eight he had studied logic; and by thirteen political economy.
At the age of seventeen he was writing articles. But such intense application
led, at the age twenty to a severe emotional disturbance. His health finally
was restored by his discovery of beauty, art and music. After Mill had written
most of his important books he served in the house of commons (1865-1868),
where he stood with radicals, principally on the extension of right to vote.
Mill independently proposed women’s suffrage and proportional
representation.
Mill at the age of fifteen
became familiar with Bentham’s ideas and these had a decisive influence
on him. Starting from Bentham’s principle that the good of the society
lies in that which brings the greatest happiness to the largest number, the
philosophical radicals agitated for repeal of the grain tariff, removal of the
causes of over population, extensive free education, prison reform, religious
liberty, freedom of labor unions, and the improvement of workers condition in
the factories. His most important philosophical works include his System of
Logic (1843), The principle of Political Economics (1848), Thoughts
on Parliamentary Reform (1859), On Liberty (1859), Utilitarianism
(1863), Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy (1865),
and The Subjection of Women (1869).
In his famous essay, Utilitarianism, Mill aims
at defending the principle of Utility, which he learned from his father and
Bentham. In defense against its critics, he made many changes within the
theory. His qualitative version came out quite different from Bentham’s
quantitative measurement. Bentham taught that pleasures differ among themselves
only in their amount; that is, different ways of behaving produce only
different quantities of the same pleasure. The only measurement of goodness is
the amount of pleasure an act can produce. This means that all modes of
behavior that produce the same amount of pleasure are equally good. He believed
that quantitative measurement of pleasure was the sole test of the morality of
an act. For him, goodness is not connected with any specific and particular
kinds of behavior but rather only with the amount of pleasures measured by his
calculus.
Mill altered Bentham’s
quantitative approach and substitutes a qualitative approach. In doing so, he
started first by giving a new analogy:
“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig
satisfied.”
He meant that, human beings have faculties more elevated than an animal’s
appetites. The pleasure of the intellect, of feelings, of imaginations and of
moral sentiments bears a higher value than that of mere sensation. For him
“ it would be absurd that while in estimating all other things, quality
is considered as well as quantity, but the estimation of pleasure should be
supposed to depend on quality alone.”
Mill’s quantitative approach holds that certain human faculties like
intellect and will, if used nicely instead of pleasure alone, can be the
criteria of true happiness that can lead to goodness. Therefore, pleasure is to
be granted not for quantity but quality; and this is the standard of morality.
2.4 Mill’s Justification of Freedom of Expression
Before moving on to examine deeply what justifies
really freedom of expression, first of all let us say in brief what freedom of
expression means itself because freedom of expression is the main point of this
paper. According to Mill, Freedom of expression is an inalienable human right
and the foundation of self-government. It is permissible only if the manner of
expression be temperate and if it does not pass the bounds of fair discussion.
Mill’s freedom of expression
is that kind of freedom which helps the individual to look for his own good in
his own way as long as he does not attempt to deprive others of their own
freedom, or impede their effort to obtain it. This freedom is a freedom from
interference from government or society. The most important point in
Mill’s justification of free expression is this: the individual must be
free to discuss and from this discussion then truth can be found. Mill says:
Truth cannot be discover if
men, who are fallible, place limits on What is permitted to discuss; only open
discussion of ideas can lead to truth and to new knowledge.
According
to Mill truth can only be found if there is free and open discussion because
for Mill true opinions are most likely to emerge through freedom of discussion.
In order to make an atmosphere of free discussion the individuals must be free
to express their thoughts and feelings to reach that truth. For Mill to limit
free expression is to limit what is essential in human life. Civilization
cannot advance without truth because the advance of society needs truth and to
discover truth the individuals need freedom of expression. The chief
justification of free expression according to Mill is that enables the
individuals to strive to know the truth and thereby to attain the dignity of
thinking beings. Furthermore, Riley summarizes Mill’s thinking as this
subject in saying,
The real morality of public
discussion, he emphasizes, involves a disposition to distinguish between what a
person says and how he says it. Complete liberty ought to be granted to both
the content and the manner of expression, with the usual caveat about
expression, which is not reasonable, classed as self-regarding. But observers
must develop the capacity to see the truth in what a person says, and separate
that truth from how he says it.
Mill values more than simply
having true opinions. Rather, he values the way in which the truth is held.
Mill wants people to hold their opinions in a rational manner, with knowledge
of the significance of these opinions and the grounds for them, and with
willingness to change or modify them in the light of new arguments and
evidence. Mill therefore distinguishes between having true opinions and what he
calls to know the truth. Whereas the avoidance of mistake argument stresses the
value of having true opinions, both the assumption of infallibility and the
necessity of error argument emphasize the importance of trying to know the
truth.
Mill’s arguments of
freedom of expression are based on the notion of human fallibility. But this
argument is ambiguous, and depending on how it is interpreted, it in fact
establishes two different connections between human fallibility and allowance
of freedom of expression, and corresponding to these two connections, there are
two different notions of the value of the search for truth. Sometimes Mill
points to human fallibility as a reason for not suppressing an opinion because
we may be mistaken, and in suppressing a purportedly false opinion, we may in
fact be suppressing what in future will be shown to be true. Mill says that:
Let us assume that the contrary opinion is mistaken,
and that we do in fact hold the true view. Nevertheless, even a true opinion
can be held in different ways: it can be held openly by a mind which is always
willing to change its point of view depending upon the evidence or it can be
held as sheer prejudice.
For
Mill those who engage in mistaken acts of suppression are often sincere men who
believe in the rightness of what they are doing. Indeed our beliefs are
generally and widely accepted by the rest of our society, and by the whole age,
this is no guarantee that we are not mistaken. According to Mill the absence of
freedom of expression also creates an atmosphere in which men fear to pursue
their opinion to unorthodox and socially unacceptable conclusion. Instead they
will trim their beliefs to suit the existing orthodox, and in such an
atmosphere of intellectual timidity and conformity, no new beliefs will emerge
to challenge prevailing views. Let’s call this avoidance of mistake
argument. Its central claim is that human fallibility makes freedom of
expression if we are to avoid suppressing true beliefs. This first argument
should be distinguished from what may be called the assumption of infallibility
argument.
According to the infallibility
argument, the opinion the individual desire to suppress may very well be false,
as we claim it to be, but, as fallible beings, the individual can have no
rational assurance that it is false unless there is freedom to discuss it. In
“ the absence of liberty of discussion and of personal experimentation,
no human can properly claim that his beliefs are warranted by the best
available evidence.”
According to Mill’s understanding, the absence of freedom of discussion
the individual is not entitled to believe that it is false, even though it may
in fact be false. To claim that the individuals know it to be false is to make
an implicit claim to their own infallibility. So unless there is freedom of expression
fallible men can have no rational grounds for believing that their opinions are
true. Mill is now no longer referring to the benefits of holding true beliefs.
He has now shifted his attention to the rationality of our beliefs, and freedom
of expression is defended as an indispensable condition for holding of rational
beliefs.
The assumption of infallibility is
closely related to the following argument of Mills that even if an opinion is
false, it would be wrong to stifle it. Let’s call this the Necessity of
Error Argument. It maintains that in the absence of freedom of discussion one
will not appreciate the full meaning of the opinion. The true beliefs will hold
as a dead dogma. By this Mill means that the person who hold such a belief will
not be properly influenced by it. He will not appreciate to any considerable
degree what he is committed to when he accepted the opinion. At the same time
his acceptance of this belief will prevent him from accepting other beliefs
that appear to oppose it, but may in fact be no more than complementary to it.
The absence of freedom of discussion also prevents us from knowing the ground
of the opinion. Mill says to support
this argument that: “complete liberty of thought and discussion is the
only way fallible being can hope to develop the capacities required to infer,
an retain a lively understanding of warranted beliefs.” Men will hold on
to a belief quite independently of the balance of arguments and evidence for
and against it. Their belief will therefore be held in a rigid and dogmatic
way, and they are unable to adapt it to changing circumstances. So for Mill
only through free expression and discussion that the individual can discover
the truth.
In summary, in Mill’s understanding of
freedom of expression, truth is found only if the individuals are free to
discuss. From that discussion, then, truth may emerge. In addition to that Mill
emphasizes the role of society in reaching that truth. According to him the
society has a right to help the individuals to develop their power and his free
expression. The following section will be dealing with the limitation of free
expression.
As shown in the first
section, true opinions are most likely to emerge through free expression and
free discussion. This is a very strong defense of freedom of expression.
Mill’s analysis in this section on limitation rather sophisticated and
his approach to morality manages somehow we balance X and Y the interests of
Utilitarianism where limitation of freedom of expression becomes a cornerstone
of man’s search for knowledge and truth.
After
knowing the truth Mill says the individual should use it wisely for the benefit
of the society. The society says Mill must balance the competing benefits of
the right to free expression against the wider interest of the society. Thus,
in times of war Mill accepts that media reports may be censored or otherwise
restricted in the interests of national security much more readily than we do
during times of peace and stability. We measure the interest of privacy of the
individual against the interest of expression to develop a law of defamation,
which should protect both sides, and we restrict freedom of a certain groups,
such as these who preach racial disharmony and hatred in order to encourage
harmony and peace within community but according to Mill “the community
has no right to coerce the individual simply for his own good.”
For example when the individuals within the society agree to allow the state or
other authority to command them on a certain issue, tolerance of a restriction
on the right to expression may emerge and this may lead to the development of
law such as the official secret act which was developed in England during the
period before the First World War against a background of mistrust and
introspection.
Mill claims that the
individuals need the fullest freedom of expression to push their arguments to
their logical limit, although not to the limit of social embarrassment. According
to Mill such freedom is necessary simply because it helps the individuals to
strive to find the truth and to attain the dignity of thinking beings as was
shown in the previous section. Mill suggests that the individuals need some
rules of conduct that regulate the action and words of members of a political
community. The limitation that Mill places on free expression is one very
simple principle. Mill uses the harm principle to limit freedom of expression.
The principle itself states that:
The only purpose for which power can be rightly
exercised over the members of a civilized community, against their will is to
prevent harm to others.
According
to Mill the individuals have some limitations in using their freedom, for
example, when this freedom is used to harm others in their affairs. Another
example is drinking alcohol. The act itself is good but when it pushes the
individuals to harm others Mill allows placing a limitation. Freedom of
expression itself as Mill mentioned above must not deprive others of their
freedom but rather must help each and everyone to develop his power and his
free expression for the common good of the society. This is the ultimate aim of
Mill’s Utilitarianism principle. The aim of this principle is to procure
the greatest happiness to the largest number of people.
Mill in trying to make a limitation on
free expression, he distinguishes between legitimate and illegitimate harm. And
it is only when expression causes a direct and clear violation of right that it
can be limited. There are so many examples to support Mill’s idea. Other
examples where the harm principle may apply include libel laws, blackmail,
advertising blatant untruth about commercial products, advertising dangerous
products to children (e.g.
Cigarettes)
and securing truth in contracts. In most cases freedom of expression has its
limits when it passes the bound of fair discussion.
The following
section will focus more on the application of freedom of expression after
analyzing the justification and the limitation of freedom of expression.
Truly speaking, Mill’s theory of freedom
of expression can be applied only to human beings capable of spontaneous
progress, which is self-development guided by their own judgement and
inclination. In Mill’s understanding, freedom as such has no application
to any state of things after to the time when mankind became capable of being
improve by free and equal discussion. In the previous section Mill places a
limitation on free expression based on the harm principle. From this
understanding he is going to demonstrate how the notion of freedom of
expression is not applicable to children. According to Riley, Mill argues as
follows:
The liberty principle in the case of parent control
over their children. His liberty maxim evident does not apply to children per
se: anyone not yet capable of rational persuasion and self development requires
to be taken care of by others, for his own good.
Freedom
of expression according to Mill is not applied to children even if their
actions are harmless to others. It is only applied to those who have some
minimal capacity for self-development. Others must substitute their judgement
and inclination to help him to develop his capacities, or at least protect him
from self-harm as well as injury at the hands of others. Thus, freedom of
expression is not applied to children, young person below the age, which the
law may fix as that of manhood or womanhood. Those who are in a state still requiring
being taken care of by others.
However, according to Mill the society
has no right to prevent competent individuals from snorting cocaine, bungy
jumping, or practicing unsafe sex, although it may have a duty to inform the
individuals of the risks so that the individuals may apply their freedom of
expression for the common good of the society.
The society can legitimately take precautions against accident, for
example, by forcing the individuals to attend to a warning of the risk he
incurs when he crosses a dangerous bridge or uses toxic drugs.
According to Mill in a free society there is a strong
presumption that the individuals should be able to express themselves freely
and more especially in relation to public issues. The society plays an important
role in individual’s life. It is really about how far individuals in
society should be protected against what is perceived as the exercise of
powers. offset or minimize those costs through taxation and education.
We saw
that Mill maintained that truth could only be found through free expression and
free discussion. After finding the truth Mill wants the individuals to hold
their opinion and rational grounds to change or modify them in the light of new
arguments and evidence. Mill gives further this argument. He admires rational
and intellectually active men, and freedom of expression and discussion are
necessary for raising even the persons of ordinary intellect to something of
the dignity of thinking being. For Mill thinking beings are those who seek to
know the truth, and who are not afraid of pursuing an idea to whatever
conclusion it leads. They adopt a certain attitude towards evidence and
arguments, which commits them to accept freedom of discussion so that all those
who disagree with them will be allowed their opposing views. A free atmosphere
is necessary if there are to be thinking men, and thinking men would want
freedom of expression both for themselves and for others.
Free thought and discussion are accepted as the sole way in which truth
can be acquired by rational being, however, someone might go on to object that
it is only necessary for some instructed elite, rather than mankind in general,
to go through the process.
In
fact, Mill cherishes freedom of expression for all the individuals but
emphasizes a bite about the rational beings that he calls elite.
Certainly he recognizes that the intellectual powers and abilities of
men differ greatly, and he believes that the intellectual elite of the society
has a special contribution to make and
freedom is not for them alone but for every human being. Indeed, it goes so far
as to say explicitly that the chief benefit of freedom of expression lies in
what can do for the average human beings. Mill suggests free expression and
discussion so that the individual may reach the truth.
Mill
in defending free expression in politics assumes that it is no longer necessary
to restate its political function in protecting citizens from the operations of
corrupt and tyrannical government. Instead, he is particularly concerned to
establish a case for the freedom to express unpopular views, which go against
the prevailing public opinions.
In relation to political freedom of expression, Bentham accepted
democracy as the best form of government because according to him the purposes
of the rulers and ruled are almost the same. Bentham had an implicit faith in
democracy. Mill agrees with him on that point but Mill also saw a certain
danger inherent in democracy.
In fact, according to Mill in a
democratic form of government, the will of the people is most often the will of
the majority, and it is entirely possible for the majority to oppress the
minority. So the majority always has more power than the minority. There is a
danger of oppression and “when this power is allowed to develop
unchecked, it may lead to a form of tyranny as evil as any kind of despotism,
tyranny of the majority over the minority.”
The only purpose for which power can be rightly exercise over any member of the
civilized community against this will is to allow free expression and to
prevent harm to others. The state has a right to protect the individuals from
being murdered and to punish those who do. The state may also have a right to
protect the individuals from actions that threaten the general health through
environment legislation or pollution controls or product labeling.
In
short, Mill from his historical background developed the principle of
Utilitarianism to procure the greatest happiness for the largest number of
people. From this principle, Mill summarizes that truth can only be found if
the individual’s freedom of expression is given to that individual
because true opinions are most likely to emerge through free expression and
discussion.
The previous chapter explained freedom of
expression in detail and their implication in politics and in society but the
following will try to make a synthesis of the first and the second chapter in
making some kind of comparison between Mill and the previous philosophers
mentioned already.
Generally speaking, the
first chapter was dealing with the concept of freedom from the classical period
up to the Contemporary period. The second chapter focused on Mill’s ideas
of freedom of expression. This chapter is going to give a short synthesis of
the first and the second chapter comparing different thinkers mentioned
already. Plato and Aristotle represent the mentality that existed in the
ancient period about freedom while Mill represents a contemporary thinker.
In fact, Plato and Aristotle can be compared to Mill in
political liberty. Plato and Aristotle regard democracy as the type of
constitution most favorable to freedom because it gives the equality of
citizenship to all freeborn men while Mill argues for universal suffrage to
give equal freedom to all men, for all who are born equal. But neither
representative government nor democratic suffrage is sufficient to guarantee
the liberty of the individual and his freedom of thought or action.
Plato
and Aristotle’s freedom was conditioned by one’s rational capacity whereas
Mill’s freedom was for the entire individual. For Mill freedom of
expression is a right of each individual whether or not. For Plato and
Aristotle only a small class of elites are citizens and share in the
responsibilities of ruling, while the majority of people are slaves, doing
manual work to maintain the city and to produce the necessary goods. According
to Mill freedom is for all. But freedom of discussion, he agues with Plato when
he writes:
Is only for some instructed
elite, rather than mankind in general, to go through the process. Concerning
for the sake of argument that there is nothing to be said against such a
division of society into a rational elite and non rational mass, that objection
still does not touch the claim that complete liberty of thought and expression
is essential for the elite.
For Mill the instructed elites have many talents to
bring to the community for average human being. But he did not neglect others. According
to him each and every one has something to contribute so that life can be
livable.
Mill
is like Plato and Aristotle in sense that their notion of freedom does not
apply to children simply because they still immature. The society must take
care of them in any case. That is, in brief, Mill in classical period. The
following section is going to situate Mill in Medieval period in the
understanding of Thomas Aquinas and Augustine.
In
the classical period, as it is shown in the previous section, freedom as such
was very stifled by rationality. In the classical period, freedom was
conditioned by one’s intellectual capacities. From this understanding the
medieval thinkers, more especially Aquinas and Augustine, tried to see this
understanding in the opposite sense. Freedom changed its meaning in this
period. Let us see how Mill can be compared to these medieval thinkers.
In
fact, Aquinas and Augustine are like Mill, in the sense that according to them
freedom of expression is the basic element in individual’s life which
promotes the common good of society. Without free expression and equality among
individuals there is no freedom at all. To support this idea Mill would say,
“the only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own
good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs
or impede their efforts to obtain it.”
Mill praises liberty as an ultimate good, both for individual and for the
state. Both agree that freedom led to the common good of the society.
For
Aquinas and Augustine, unlike Mill, freedom cannot exist without grace because
grace is addressed only to free man. For Aquinas and Augustine, “to be
able to do evil is a proof of free choice; to be able not to do evil is also a
proof of free choice.”
The individual who in general is completely strengthened by grace is also the
freest. Therefore, liberty is to serve Christ. Mill’s freedom is not
based on God but for him freedom is acquired only through free expression and
open discussion. Mill disagrees with them by maintaining that the
individual’s freedom is innate.
3.3 Mill and
Modern Period
Freedom of expression in the
medieval period was based in God the Creator of man. This paragraph is going to
compare Mill’s understanding of this concept freedom with Descartes and
Kant.
Descartes is like Mill; both
of them stress man’s freedom not to assent to a proposition when there is
any room for doubt, and at the same time to allow for inevitable assent when
the truth of proposition is perceived with certainty. The individual may reject
error freely. But Descartes also differs from Mill; the former uses methodic
doubt to justify freedom of expression, whereas the later uses the
Utilitarianism principle to justify freedom of expression. According to
Descartes, the “the capacity to apply methodic doubt presupposes freedom.
Indeed awareness of freedom or liberty is innate idea.”
In Descartes’ view of freedom man is in possession of freedom and has the
power of acting freely while Mill says man was born to be free but not in
possession of freedom. Furthermore Mill says freedom is not innate but acquired
through free discussion.
Kant is like Mill in the
sense that according to him, only the universal law can guarantee the individual
freedom and equality. Because the universal laws command us to act not so that
we are happy, but so that our action will be free and right. Whereas Mill from
his utilitarianism principle he says the individual decides what is right by
looking at the consequence or the utility of performing a particular act on a
particular occasion. Kant is like Mill; in that the individuals do their duty
by following the universal law those, which promote the greatest, balance of
happiness of each individual. Kant speaks of freedom of will, which is innate
in man; Mill, on the contrary, says man was born to be free.
In
contemporary philosophy the meaning of freedom has changed completely with
Sartre. In this period, freedom was understood in a strict sense. Sartre
stresses the absolute freedom of man. According to him man is condemned to be
free. To support this statement he says “I am condemned to exist forever
beyond my essence, beyond the causes and motives of my act.”
Man in Sartre’s conception is totally free because he finds himself
thrown into the world. While in Mill’s understanding, freedom is not in
the absolute sense Sartre mentioned. For Mill, man was born to be free.
Mill’s freedom of expression is acquired only when there is free
expression and discussion and from that discussion then truth may emerge.
Sartre says:
“The existence precedes the
essence.” Man in Sartre’s view is self-consciousness, which makes
him to be independent from any interference. But Mill says the same thing in a
different way.
Mill’s freedom of
expression helps the individual to be equal and independent so that he can
achieve the greatest happiness for the largest number of people. Sartre is Mill
in the sense that both are claiming freedom
of man
but in different way.
According to my own
observation I am going to give a conclusion of this paper after having
understood. In fact, in many new, free and independent countries, the leaders
pay scant attention to the individual’s freedom. The individual liberty
is the freedom from interference from other people, most especially, freedom
from undue interference from government. As an ideal it assumes that some areas
of an individual’s life ought never to be interfered with by any
government. The essential individual liberties are generally held to be:
freedom of expression; freedom of information; freedom of worship and the right
to marry whomever one wish. The free areas, then, are the individual’s
private life, and the life of thought and reason. Thus freedom of expression is
important at all levels in society. Yet it is most important for government.
Generally speaking, a
government, which does not know what people, feel and think is in a dangerous
position. If those areas of the individual’s freedom are respected then,
the individual shall enjoy freedom of expression and belief and freedom from
fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common
people. In fact, the common justification for the restrictions upon
individual’s freedom is the overriding interests of efficient government
and public benefit. It is conveniently overlooked that what constitutes
efficient government and public benefit are subjective concepts, the
interpretation of which will be in the lands of legislator, bureaucrats and
judges with human failing and feelings, lack of vision, imperfect knowledge and
understanding, subjective views and personal prejudices. However, while public
benefit is an important factor, the test of allowing further restrictions upon
individual’s freedom should strive to be somewhat more stringent.
Adler
J. Mortimer. “Liberty,” in The Great
Ideas. Ed. by Robert, Maynard
Hutchuns (Chicago: The University of
Chicago, 1952), 1: 999 –1003.
Aquinas,
Thomas. “Summa Theologica,” in Encyclopaedia Britanica XIX
(1952), 509-512.
Augustine.
“The city of God,” in Encyclopaedia
Britanica XVII (Chicago:
University of Chicago, 1952), 127- 618.
____.
The History of Christian Philosophy in The middle Ages. Ed. by
Edmund, Sutcliffe. NY: Random House,
1954.
Copleston,
Frederick. A History of Philosophy. Vol IV & VIII. Great Britain:
The Newman Press, 1966.
Descartes,
Rene. A History of Philosophy. Ed. by Edmund, Sutcliffe
(London: The Newman Press, 1959), 4: 139-152.
Heraty,
Jack and Associates. “Freedom,” in NCE VI (1967), 95-105.
Hutchins,
Maynard Robert. “Freedom,” in Encyclopaedia Britanica II
(1952), 997-999.
Micken,
Richard. The Basic Work of Aristotle. NY: Random House, 1941.
Mill
Stuart, John. “Utilitarianism,” in The Cambridge Companion to Mill.
Ed. by John Skorupski (NY: Cambridge
University, 1998), 257-265.
____.
“On Liberty,” in Jonathan Riley. London: University College
London, 1998.
____.
Political Philosophy of Mill. Ed. by Popkin H. Richard And Strol
Avrum. Great Britain: Butter worth- Heinemann
Ltd., 1986.
Sartre,
Jean-Paul. Existentialism and Humanism. Trans. by Philip
Mairet. NY: Haskell House
Publishers, 1948.
____.
Being and Nothingness: An Essay in Phenomenological Ontology.
Trans. by Hazel E. NY: The Citadel Press, 1966.
