How Does Mill’s Principle of Liberty Contribute to Progress?

The concept of conversance seems to have been systematic solelyy analysed and re-structured throughout history by ambitious philosophers keen on creating a better world. John Stuart donkeywork, a British philosopher of the XIX century, is not an exception from this trend. With his thought-provoking work On Liberty, he sets a basis for what he believes will break a mien to the ripening of the human universe and carry to its upgrade. This gives way to his rule of Liberty, which illustrates that only(prenominal) a shift soulfulness, and by default also the orderliness, has the opportunity for growth through searching the fair play by questioning and debating.It may be agreed upon that a crocked barrier to whatsoever habitus of progress is the avoidance or inattention of the justice. manufactory goes sluice further and lay outs that an opinion may be all true, wholly false, or partially true, and all three realize the super acid good. The only way to attain this truth is through discussion, as If all mankind minus unitary, were of on opinion, and only ane and only(a) soulfulness were of the obstinate opinion, mankind would be no more(prenominal) confirm in silencing that one item-by-item, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. This quotation mark is a striking example of the importance of researching the truth through thought and expression, and is one of the factors contributing to item-by-item indecorousness. The world a human being grows up in shapes his opinions, and while this is acceptable for initial thorough laws of thought and awargonness, hoagy argues it is stark to rely only on it and not reflect on other(a) worlds. Not only would such an attitude impair the total ferwork forcetation of ones mental capabilities and capacity, it would also lead to seeing yourself as infallible.After all, if a person surrounds himself with passel of the like convictions as him, then it is argu able to presume that he will believe m some(prenominal) an(prenominal) things as issues that be no longer doubtful. This in turn results in the line amidst opinion and fact getting blurred due to the inexistence of surround, causing many future errors which could have been omitted otherwise. The suppression of opinion based on notion in infallible doctrines is dangerous, whereas any silencing of discussion is, according to mill about, an given of infallibility.Treating truth as a relative concept by refusing to attend what one considers a false opinion is assuming that their genuinety is the same things as absolute certainty. Humans should keep their mind make to criticism of their belief and listen to a variety of views on it in order to understand it and be able to defend against it. A contact of conflicting opinions enables us to find fuller truths. The only way we may know if a belief is true or not is to argufy it. If a doctrine is not fully, frequently and fearles sly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a liveness truth.Mill seeks to point out this fundamental issue which, due to its simplicity and obviousness, is lots underrated. No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this nor is it in the nature of human intellect to induce wise in any other manner. Of course, a study problem in attaining the truth is that it may remain in squeeze circles of thinking and studious persons among whom they originate, without ever airying up the general affairs of mankind with either a true or deceptive light. This is precisely what Mill wants to avoid.Moreover, he wants to advance the discussion to a higher(prenominal) level of clarity without an several(prenominal)s actions and beliefs being restricted by bonds of custom and con formity. He notes that the most venerable beliefs arise from a persons own critical assessments and reasoning. The Principle of Liberty illustrates his argument that license is indispensable to origin ality of character as it is the direction by which a person keister develop as an individual. And, Mill claims, The free development of personal identity is one of the leading infixeds of well-being.This line of reasoning leads us to an of import panorama of Mills Principle, i. e. how it contributes to individual and, in the long run, affectionate progress. We have already established that seeking the truth provokes the mental development of an individual. The cultivation of individuality will result in human triumph as it requires do choices that one thinks is most beneficial to their life. First, Mill argues, until now though people do make mistakes, individuals atomic number 18 still more likely to be right about what would make them happy than anyone else. It is essential to help one another distinguish between worthy and nauseous pursuits through persuasive argument and use of liberty in a sensible way to fully develop as free individuals. A second reason for libert y is that it will not only lead to better decisions in the long run, but also that the exercise of independence of choice is itself vital to the full development of human nature. Those who are hard worker to customs, Mill suggest, will never develop into rounded, flourishing individuals not necessarily because they will be nhappy, but because they will fail to develop one of their most distinctively human capacities, the capacity for choice. Consequently, one cease argue that since individuality is a positive thing, it is necessary to build social institutions that contribute to that individuality. A functioning society whereby individuals are able to learn from others experiments of living is, according to Mill, human progress at its best. Liberty is vital as a condition of experimentation , for without it peoples rational would not be utilize and thus would not develop.When a person becomes more valuable to himself, he immediately becomes more valuable to society. It is nec essary, however, to stress the limit of liberty, also cognise as the Harm Principle. As long as one persons actions do not harm the interests of another, society should not interfere. Mill identifies the permanent interests of man as a progressive being as his interests in autonomy and in security. Furthermore, when a human being does not intrude on another persons liberty, that person can develop accordingly, and incidentally become a role model demonstrate others how (not) to live.This is how the less creative individuals of society can make informed decisions on leading their own lives, i. e. learning from experimenting, which is quite the chief ingredient of individual and social progress. Nevertheless, critics of Mills Principle are rapidly to notice that his ideas rest on the optimistic outlook that human beings are capable of learning from consume, indeed, that they even want to do it. Yet as history shows, humankind is consistent in failing to learn from mistakes. dist ribute is the cornerstone of Mills doctrine , yet if humans are not prepared to learn, how do they differ from children and barbarians?Liberty is a means to progress incapable of free speech and debate, children and barbarians do not benefit from liberty and hence it does not apply to them. Thus we may digest that a certain attitude towards life is needed for Mills Principle to succeed, that is to say it strongly relies on humans having the capacity of making moral progress. He believes this can be trained by society in the early stages of human life. It is throughout childhood when society has the biggest regulate over a person, when it should strive to embed values it hopes to see materialise in cock-a-hoophood.The knowledge a child accumulates should then be left hand free to be interpreted in any way the adult sees fit after reaching maturity. After all, non scholae, sed vitae discimus. Moreover, if the person fails to accept those values, or remains immature, it is societ ys own fault. Precisely this point has been the target of a lot criticism, seen as the crux of Mills idealistic vision for an unbelievable future that goes against human nature. For if everyone remained immature, then how is liberty to contribute to individual and social progress?If this were the result, the entire ideology would be abolished in an jiffy and in lieu of it in modern times, other beliefs would dominate. Yet liberty continues to be epitomized as the best answer to a free, happy society. As previously stated, bonds of conformity are considered by Mill to be a restraint on liberty. The reason behind this is twofold. First of all, relying only on traditions and treating them as your moral guide by which you live your life, a form of dogma which one accepts without question, hinders your decision-making abilities.Mill places great emphasis on the importance of choice. By narrowing someones choices and making them complaint to a certain lifestyle, you take away their fr eedom. Secondly, such forced conformity denies the existence of variety. This is a key factor in human development, for by seeing peoples dissimilarities () one learns about ones own impuissance. Mill is eager to draw attention to the potential opportunities that arise with this, for example, by improving oneself you have the freedom to make mistakes, assert falsehood, and interpret the experience as you see fit.Whatever conclusion one comes to is still a form of human progress, but this is only possible thanks to an open culture. This office is severely criticized by communitarians, who see Mill is an iconoclast. They argue that we are overly interconnected to simply untie societys bonds, and nor is there any reason why we would want to- after all, humans are social creatures and individual separation is not the key to freedom. A counter-argument to this may be that culture is an evolving process as well, and rapid cultural transgressions do number frequently, especially in ter ms of technological and scientific progress.Of course, some morality are static and universal, but if we were to perpetually follow a form of customs of society, we would remain immobile. What is more, there is a lack of consistency in communitarians perception of freedom, simply because they do not considerate the full purpose of how subjective traditions tend to be. What is customary for one person may not be for another, and enforcing ones traditions onto another human being, especially if it is through with(p) by society, truly harms the minority.Such a repressive form of society is deemed by Mill as a regression of individual progress, a balk to create the ultimate good in the future, human progress. The above mentioned arguments illustrate clearly why Mill was so keen on defending the concept of liberty, what he considers the only way in which progress can be enforced without impinging on others freedom. It is, he argues, the fundamental human right. The sole end, Mill st ates, for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.Wolff comments on this by saying that this will enable each to seek his or her own best it will liberate a diversity of interests to the benefit of the individual and of all and it will nurture moral freedom and rationality. With the latter comes creativity and the means of social and intellectual progress. Such liberty contributing to progress is more so beneficial due to what it entails, i. e. the individuals freedom of thought and discussion. Mill protests against any stifling of opinion, for even if it were false, we would not recognize its wrongness without contrasting it with the truth.One will never reach the highest levels of self-development without debate and constant awareness of ones fallibility. Critical assessments of beliefs and opinions are necessary, and only when they survive the struggle as it were in the market place of ideas, then, and only then, will one be entitled to accept them as justified . Even then, however, we may be in the wrong. As history has showed us, men who we see now as evil and immoral were not in their time, as they were acting accordingly to the rules of the society they were brought up in. Thus the debate must be on-going and never lead to a deep pause of a decided opinion.Furthermore, mere shock to tender sensibilities can never be weighty enough harm to counterbalance the case for free expression of opinion. Nevertheless, it is imperative to keep in mind the statements that Mill is being too optimistic and naive. After all, his whole Principle balances on the assumption that human beings are capable of progress. Even if we concede to that, Mills Principle still put forward an essential aspect of human growth. How? Let us look at a quote by George Bernard Shaw progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.The importance of free speech and debate reverberates throughout the whole of On Liberty. Mill is always eager to encourage seeking the truth his Harm Principle states that we cannot harm others interests, yet he does not rule out persuasion. through persuasive arguments and by taking advantage of our freedom in smart ways, we develop both ourselves and those we come in contact with and pave the way for progress. Bibliography 1. Bartleby Editors . (2012). On Liberty. Available . croak accessed fifteenth Dec 2012. 2. Feinberg, Joel (1980). Rights, Justice, and the Bounds of Liberty. Essays in Social Philosophy.Princeton Princeton University Press. 3. Gray, J (1996). Mill on Liberty A Defense. capital of the United Kingdom Routledge. Chapter 3. 4. Honderich, Ted. (2005). John Stuart Mills On Liberty, and a Question about Liberalism. Available . Last accessed fifteenth Dec 2012. 5. Lacewing, Michael. (2012). Mill on Liberty. Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. Available . Last accessed 15th Dec 2012. 6. Mill, John Stuart (2001). On Liberty. Kitchener Batoche Books. 7. Sparknotes Editors. (2012). On Liberty. Available . Last accessed 15th Dec 2012. 8. Wilson, Fred. (2007). John Stuart Mill. Available Last accessed 15th Dec 2012. Chapter 4.