Mills Call to Individuality and Liberty
Mill’s argument on liberty, individuality, and society fundamentally rests on the idea of the Harm Principle. Ideally, in this discourse, there are several perceivable philosophical thoughts in a modernized society. There is the advocacy of Individual sovereignty both in ideas and speech, which is seen as the ultimate way to protected individual privacy, and the only possible reason personal liberty can be interfered with is if it causes danger to others (“Mills Call to Individuality and liberty”). Diversity both in thought and speech and not coercion is seen as an agent of plurality, which typically ensures individuality and propagates the progress of a society. A free society is characterized by harm but not offense, and instead of the government having restrictive laws, the government should protect personal liberty. HP postulates that though personal damage might be a reason, it’s not good enough to interfere with individual freedom (“Mills Call to Individuality and liberty”). There is also essential foundationalism of creating a society free from coercion both socially and politically hence upholding individualism, which mills view as a pre-amble for creativity and freedom in thought, life, and speech. Mill argues that a well-ordered society that enables us to lead meaningful lives must be able to take measures to mitigate social tyranny or social pressure
.
This discourse carries similar characteristics looking at my immediate context. The essence of individuality, freedom of thought and speech, a liberal society free from tyrannical and social manipulation are all essential metrics of measuring societal progress. For example, the government has enacted several laws prohibiting absolute expression both in thought and speech. On the other hand, there is no freedom or liberty to think what you want due to the level of coercion in our society. From an early age, we are taught what to think, what to believe, and the perspective we should bear about every single facet of society. For example, if someone is born in a Muslim family, they are taught how to believe and behave like Muslims. In our current contemporary society, creativity can’t be achieved through pluralism and liberty since their no room for it. Fundamentally, if someone is taken through the school system, his thought line and tendencies will be influenced by the set principles and not individual thought. Societal responsibility is capitalized currently since a person’s life is taken to be of the greater good of the society.
Immaturity and The Challenge to Know
Kant critically analyses different facets that are tied to moral obligation, fulfilled life, and enlightenment concerning liberty in public use of reason (“ Kant Immaturity and Challenge to Know”). There is a clear distinction between the public and private sphere as this discourse argues there parameters both in reasoning, talking, and thinking. On the one hand, enlightenment is seen as the essence of what it is to lead a whole human life while on the other side, So freedom of thought and speech is seen as what is essential to leading a genuinely human life (“ Kant Immaturity and Challenge to Know”). It is definitive to note that immaturity can’t be said to be self-imposed but rather self-incurred, and true enlightenment can only happen when we emerge from our self incurred immaturity due to ignorance and laziness. Though we understand, the lack of will and courage to do what we know without guidance shows the self incurrence of it.
Typically, a meaningless life is more of a lack of responsibility and personal will to think independently. Progress of human life is intrinsically tied to development in the several facets of human life, intellectual advancement, moral progress e.t.c promoting the free use of reason. The postulation holds that the deterrence to freedom of thought is tied to a person’s immaturity and authoritatively imposed immaturity. In our contemporary society, though there is advocacy for public use of reason and liberty of expression, more people are more preservative and not willing to reason publicly and stand on their discourse. Furthermore, the societies set up encourages laziness both in thought and lifestyle as we tend to abhor responsibilities. Nevertheless, to uphold morality, public reason is guarded withing the concordances of what is highly believed within the society and not individual thought.
Works Cited
“Mills Call to Individuality and liberty” https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zZYN7KG67lAW2e1QLzaQjYu-_p_QYW6-/view.”
354449879_2
“ Kant Immaturity and Challenge to Know” https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DTBOHaMUBrkVSMlITZZ6qoFv3fQizvdZ/view._Mills_Call_to_Individuality_and_to_Liberty_4893850959271674.mp3
354449879_26._Mills_Call_to_Individuality_and_to_Liberty_4893850959271674.mp3
354449879_26._Mills_Call_to_Individuality_and_to_Liberty_4893850959271674.mp3