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

51–60 of 110 posts

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#51

Post by smhmd »

One of my more used quotes. Page 35 on the document.

> He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. The rational position for him would be suspension of judgment, and unless he contents himself with that, he is either led by authority, or adopts, like the generality of the world, the side to which he feels most inclination. Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form; he must feel the whole force of the difficulty which the true view of the subject has to encounter and dispose of; else he will never really possess himself of the portion of truth which meets and removes that difficulty.

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#52

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…

> 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.

Would you recommend an essay or book chapter that elaborates a bit on this assessment?

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#53

Post by gorbachev15 »

xpe wrote: post #45
dvt wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?"

“Society should treat all equally well who have deserved equally well of it, that is, who have deserved equally well absolutely. This is the highest abstract standard of social and distributive justice; towards which all institutions, and the efforts of all virtuous citizens should be made in the utmost degree to converge.” —John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, 1861

The origination of social justice initiatives.

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#54

Post by imustbeevil »

pdonis wrote: post #47
imustbeevil wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, a…

That's one interpretation.

Another would be that there are any number of externalities of speech that affect society directly, such as coercion and fraud.

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#55

Post by nine_k »

newacct583 wrote: post #48
nine_k wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Do you think that racial segregation regulations, anti-gay regulations, long-gone anti-Jewish regulations and fresh anti-immigrant regulations were created against the will of the majority? Often the majority directly voted for them, like city-wide sundown laws.

It takes a rather hard conscious effort to remember that other people freedoms need preserving if you value your own, because you are not always guaranteed be on the side of the majority.

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#56

Post by jessriedel »

Can't recommend this essay highly enough. In particular, it gives a thorough defense of the claim that the importance of protecting freedom of speech ought to guide our personal action and community norms; freedom of speech is not just about restrictions on the government like the first amendment, as so often is unwisely argued.

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#57

Post by gentleman11 »

rjkennedy98 wrote: post #30
imustbeevil wrote: post #25

> Though society is not founded on a contract, and though no good purpose is answered by inventing a contract in order to deduce social obligations from it, every one who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest. > This conduct consists, first, in not inju…

> 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…

It’s also worth noting that cancel culture itself arose because a different “prevailing opinion” was creating different problems. In every case, whichever group ends up in the lead makes things hard for the other groups

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#58

Post by pdonis »

imustbeevil wrote: post #54
pdonis wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, a…

That's one interpretation. Another would be that there are any number of externalities of speech that affect society directly, such as coercion and fraud.

Coercion and fraud are not speech. More generally, verbal statements that are part of other actions, such as negotiations for a market transaction, are not speech. The whole point of "speech" is that it is just expressing the beliefs or opinions of the speaker.

Re: On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

#59

Post by dvt »

xpe wrote: post #45
dvt wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?"

Alexis de Tocqueville in his Democracy in America said it quite well:

"Democratic laws generally tend to promote the welfare of the greatest possible number; for they emanate from the majority of the citizens, who are subject to error, but who cannot have an interest opposed to their own advantage."

This is, by definition, utilitarianism (greatest amount of good, least amount of bad, and all that).

[1] http://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper/DETOC/1_ch14.htm

Post reply on HN