Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

socialsciences.mcmaster.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 110 posts

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#41

Post by dvt »

xpe wrote: post #26
dvt wrote: post #12

Just a few of the ideas that this seminal text brought to the fore: - The Marketplace of Ideas - The Harm Principle - Utilitarianism as the moral mechanism of social policy One of my all-time favorite pieces of political philosophy. I wish more people (not just philosophers or political scientists) took the time to read it. Also consider checking out Hobbes' Leviathan [1] and Rousseau's On the Social Contract [2]. [1…

> Utilitarianism as the moral mechanism of social policy Is this a quotation? A phrase from a particular work? Could you share the context? I do not accept that utilitarianism is "the" moral mechanism of social policy. Yes, many economists use utility maximization in their analyses, but there is a diversity of thought around many things, such as (but not limited to): (a) what should utility include; (b) the functiona…

> Yes, many economists use utility maximization in their analyses

This has nothing to do with economists; the Western legal system is (more or less) based on the weighing of different interests (definitionally: utilitarianism). There are, of course, a few exceptions -- which graze deontology, and even rarer still virtue ethics and (more historically) some divine command theory -- but overall, I'd say that yeah, we're pretty much utilitarian.

> There is a whole field of thought that digs into these variations.

Agreed, ethics is a rich and valuable field.

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#43

Post by young_unixer »

badRNG wrote: post #29
young_unixer wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> an inequality of outcome, on the basis of race or sex is the best indicator one would have of an inequality of opportunity. It's good if you use it as an indicator, but it's currently used as "evidence" and as a justification to give certain advantages to certain groups under the (almost always unproven) assumption that there's inequality of opportunity. For example: quota laws, and affirmative action in general. Q…

Inequality "of outcome" is the best evidence one can have of inequality "of opportunity", and again, it was the primary evidence in the Brown v. Board of Education overturn of Plessy v. Ferguson. The distinction didn't hold water in 1954, and I don't think it holds water in 2020. Consistent inequality on the basis of sex or race is the principle evidence that there is inequality "of opportunity."

> Consistent inequality on the basis of sex or race is the principle evidence that there is inequality "of opportunity."

How so?

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#44

Post by xpe »

virmundi wrote: post #31
supernova87a wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A classic everyone should read, especially today. Individual liberty is increasingly disregarded, belittled, and discarded, and I find that extremely dangerous. JSM is one of the handful of pillars of that thinking whose eloquence makes it accessible to all. Wow, well I have to voice some public disbelief over this statement. Maybe you just write it as a reflex? You think personal liberties are at a low point? I mus…

[flagged]

> For example, a man can wake up one day saying to himself, "Damn, I feel like a woman". If I don't accept that he is, if only for a fleeting moment, a woman, than I'm labeled a bigot.

This comes across as a caricature of a serious issue.

For what it is worth, whether I agree or disagree with you (or anyone), I strive not to mischaracterize your concerns.

I would like to ask a favor. Please read [1] and come back here afterward. Try rephrasing your comment. I hope you are capable of making a good faith attempt at understanding sex (at birth), gender identity, expression, and so on.

1: https://www.adolescenthealth.org/Meetings/Past-Meetings/2017...

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#45

Post by xpe »

dvt wrote: post #41
xpe wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Utilitarianism as the moral mechanism of social policy Is this a quotation? A phrase from a particular work? Could you share the context? I do not accept that utilitarianism is "the" moral mechanism of social policy. Yes, many economists use utility maximization in their analyses, but there is a diversity of thought around many things, such as (but not limited to): (a) what should utility include; (b) the functiona…

> Yes, many economists use utility maximization in their analyses This has nothing to do with economists; the Western legal system is (more or less) based on the weighing of different interests (definitionally: utilitarianism). There are, of course, a few exceptions -- which graze deontology, and even rarer still virtue ethics and (more historically) some divine command theory -- but overall, I'd say that yeah, we're…

Could you please answer my other question:

>> Utilitarianism as the moral mechanism of social policy

> "Is this a quotation? A phrase from a particular work? Could you share the context?"

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#46

Post by LeonB »

ngcc_hk wrote: post #37
LeonB wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he was alive today he would probably update his views- just as he updated them in his lifetime.

Yes. That is the difference between a good and a bad one. Inconsistent one may say. But that is life. Even for philosopher.

Something as simple as "Pythagoras' theorem" can move forward through time and remain correct, but a complex philosophy that was itself created in response to the conditions of the time can't be seen as "universal" or "timeless".

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#47

Post by pdonis »

imustbeevil wrote: post #35
rjkennedy98 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant—society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it—its means of tyrannising are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionari…

I tried to quote as much as possible because basically every paragraph hedges the former. This is the paragraph that immediately follows yours: > But though this proposition is not likely to be contested in general terms, the practical question, where to place the limit—how to make the fitting adjustment between individual independence and social control— is a subject on which nearly everything remains to be done. >…

> It seems pretty clear that absolute free speech is absolutely off the table.

Actually, speech is probably the one area that actually realizes Mill's otherwise unrealistic ideal case for when society should have no jurisdiction over individual action:

"when a person’s conduct affects the interests of no persons besides himself, or needs not affect them unless they like (all the persons concerned being of full age, and the ordinary amount of understanding)"

Mere speech cannot affect the interests of anyone: words are not magic spells. So by Mill's logic, society should indeed have no jurisdiction over speech--absolute free speech should not be off the table.

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#48

Post by newacct583 »

nine_k wrote: post #38
supernova87a wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A classic everyone should read, especially today. Individual liberty is increasingly disregarded, belittled, and discarded, and I find that extremely dangerous. JSM is one of the handful of pillars of that thinking whose eloquence makes it accessible to all. Wow, well I have to voice some public disbelief over this statement. Maybe you just write it as a reflex? You think personal liberties are at a low point? I mus…

> You think personal liberties are at a low point? They are again under attack, as is free speech, mostly out of outwardly good intentions such as preserving justice, public safety, or even, ironically, inclusion. This is a perpetual conflict, though. > Everything that is marketed to us, that enters our political discourse, ... "You do your way", "how you want it, when you want it", etc ...as long as it's politically…

> A tyranny of majority is a thing :(

It's a meme for sure. Whether it's a "thing" in the reality of modern American discourse is sort of an open question.

The fact that the people most enthused with the idea of being suppressed by the tyrannical majority are members of the ruling party, dominant gender and most affluent racial demographics sorta makes the logical construction a bit complicated.

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#49

Post by virmundi »

xpe wrote: post #44
virmundi wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> For example, a man can wake up one day saying to himself, "Damn, I feel like a woman". If I don't accept that he is, if only for a fleeting moment, a woman, than I'm labeled a bigot. This comes across as a caricature of a serious issue. For what it is worth, whether I agree or disagree with you (or anyone), I strive not to mischaracterize your concerns. I would like to ask a favor. Please read [1] and come back her…

It’s not a mischaracterization. That is the platform of the trans positive groups. They say that sex and gender are divorced and anyone who does not agree with that are committing hate speech. Further there are those that advocate for fluidity of gender. They say that a single individual may float across the whole spectrum of gender in the same day. If I don’t use the proper pronoun at the right time for that person, again, I am committing hate speech.

If I say in my reality, remember they are claiming relativity, that gender and sex are the same; If I say no one floats across the spectrum like that, rather than them conforming to my reality as they demand of me and society at large, I am labeled a bigot.

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#50

Post by newacct583 »

badRNG wrote: post #22
young_unixer wrote: post #11

"Mill’s thinking on women’s rights was influenced by his wife, Harriet Taylor Mill (1807-1858). In 1869 Mill published his famous essay 'The Subjection of Women', in favour of equality of the sexes." https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transforming... You know what's funny? He was early in the fight for sex equality, but if he lived today he would probably be qualified as a sexist by the "progressive" mob…

> He was early in the fight for sex equality, but if he lived today he would probably be qualified as a sexist by the "progressive" mob for wanting equality of opportunity instead of equality of outcome. This "equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome" discussion is a mischaracterization of the position of "the progressive mob" that is misguided at best, dishonest at worst. Historically, in feminist, anti-coloni…

> This "equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome" discussion is a mischaracterization of the position of "the progressive mob" that is misguided at best, dishonest at worst.

It's also misrepresenting Mill, who surely did not argue against the desirability of equal outcomes. He was simply writing in a different environment, where giant glaring differences of opportunity made for easier argument and lower hanging fruit.

I don't see how you get from "Women must have access to the same professions as men" to a person who necessarily agrees with "It's not a problem if chicks aren't paid as much as dudes, there are all these other factors".

Post reply on HN