Human Liberty John Stuart Mill wrote at a time when he could look ahead, or take a look over his shoulder and see the rebellion and blood shed caused by oppressive governments. Millions gave their lives for the hope of improving the lives of their descendents and the condition of their nation. Beginning in Mill's time, and especially now, many countries no longer need to worry about rebellion against oppressive governments; democracy rules most of the land, and now the main worry is of people oppressing people. Civil liberty has given us freedom of life, but we must now fight for social liberty, freedom of our minds. The great dilemma of society is that of the freedom versus safety scale. In the beginning of civilization, being that humans had just came straight out of the state of nature, extreme measures needed to be taken to control these not yet social animals. These early humans lived with an extreme lack of freedom, but it was necessary because they were in extreme need of safety. The purpose of these early governments was necessary, "to prevent the weaker members of the community from being preyed upon by unnumerable vultures, it was needful that there should be an animal of prey stronger than the rest, commissioned to keep them down." (Mill, page 303, paragraph 1) These early inhabitants had not yet "attained the capacity of being guided to their own improvement by conviction or persuasion." (Mill, page 311, paragraph 1) People rebelled and evolved throughout these early beginnings, and with each success, more freedom was attained because less oppression was needed to keep them safe. The first step toward social liberty was through the idea that government should be monitored. Certain rights were recognized as innate human rights, and any infringement on these rights would cause a justifiable rebellion. Next, a body of officials was chosen to keep an eye on the government, and report to the citizens any negative findings. At this time the interest of the government and of the people was nearly identical, and uniting was the result. With more power than ever before, the citizens came to the realization of self-government. The main basis of this democracy was that whatever the majority of the people wanted, would occur. This seemed like a good idea, but just because most of the people agree with something, does that make it true or right? The majority began passing laws and bills that would benefit the majority, leaving the minority with no say. Seeing the majority oppressing the minority gave Mill the insight to write about social liberty, "the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual." (Mill, page 302, paragraph 1) One major set back for social liberty is that few people can recognize when it is infringed upon. Most people will think, "freedom of speech, didn't we settle that once and for all with the Bill of Rights?" John Mill gave the examples of one man sentenced to twenty-one months in jail for blaspheming against Christianity, and two other men who on separate occasions where refused jury duty because they professed no theological belief. The fourth and final example given by Mill, is of a man who was actually denied justice against a thief because he did not believe in any God. These first examples seem absurd to modern day people, but the fact that atheists could not help another human by presenting evidence in court is even more so. The presumption at that time was that the atheist had no morals because there would be no consequences for his soul due to lack of belief; and besides, the oath on the holy bible means nothing to an atheist. However, Mill points out that, "it admits the testimony of all atheists who are willing to lie, and rejects only those who brave the obloquy of publicly confessing a detested creed rather than affirm a falsehood." (Mill, page 329, paragraph 1) On the other hand, the only reason keeping the Christian from lying is because he is afraid of hell, and what makes this person more moral than the atheist? Even the fear of hell is not reason to believe that bible followers will always tell the truth, just look at how they follow and break other rules of the bible at their own discretion. Of course, the examples of Mill are over one hundred years old, we don't need to worry about them now, right? Actually, there are many modern day examples all over the place. Last summer, community complaints led to the canceling of a show given by that crazy, satanic, shock rocker Marylin Manson. Modern day Paganists who worship a piece of cloth have desperately tried to pass laws against flag burners. Recently, there was controversy as to whether members of the Ku Klux Klan would be allowed to have their annual rallies in certain American cities. In a newspaper article about this, there was a picture of a woman holding a sign, which read, "no free speech for Ku Klux Klan." Of course, these acts go against the constitution and more importantly against human liberty. "Fuck the first amendment, my speech was free the second my soul descended." (Jurassic 5, 1997, Rumble Records) Should racist red necks, Satanists, and anarchists have free speech? These are all matters of opinion, but how do we decipher which opinions and good, and which bad? It is obvious that just because the majority of a people share the same opinion, has nothing to do with the truthfulness of the opinion, they are often biased by self-perception. The average person, "has the feeling in his mind that everyone should be required to act as he." (Mill, page 306, paragraph 2) These kinds of opinions have no logical reasoning behind them, as opinions seldom do. As Mill concludes, opinions can be determined by prejudices, superstitions, social affections, antisocial affections, envy, jealousy, arrogance, contemptuousness, desires, fears, feelings of class superiority, and legitimate or illegitimate self-interest. These means used to decide opinion are also very influenced by individual class, race, religion, sex, ect This shows that opinions can run amok in all directions with out proper rational inspection. These biased opinions not only cause the majority to further oppress the minority; they are also suppressing truth. Every era has their own majority opinions, which many times are found to be ludicrous by following eras. For example, look at early people who believed with all their heart that the solar system revolved around the earth, and when witch-hunting became a favorite pastime of early American settlers. These beliefs in and of their own are not harmful, but when they are imposed on others and dissenters are actually persecuted, it's obvious there is a problem. "To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty." (Mill, page 317, paragraph 1) Since opinions are capable of being false, how do we decide which ones to follow? We can never be sure, but the opinion that is acquired from reason is more likely to be a truth than one acquired from custom or heredity. "No one can be a great thinker who does not recognize that as a thinker it is his first duty to follow his intellect to whatever conclusions it may lead." (Mill, page 331, paragraph 2) We cannot only use reason to think about our opinion, but also use reason to think about the arguments against our opinion. Mill believes that we cannot be sure of our opinion until we understand why contradicting theories are shown to be false; and to do this, we cannot merely look at the other side, but actually observe and debate with people who truly believe it. However, what about people who look to other side, see its rightness, and continue to suppress this view because the original is so very "important and necessary" to society? Mill replies that no falsehood is ever correct in sustaining, because the fact that it is a fallacy means it is robbing us of a truth. Besides, the fact it is seen as necessary is only an illusion because it merely reflects custom. Modern day Christians may believe that a rise in Atheism would cause a tear in the moral fabric of society; which is ironic because in the beginning, Christianity had the same thought branded on it. The point is that because opinions are not and can not be judged to be totally correct, we must not choose the opinions of others for them. Knowing this, where do why draw the line between social constraints and individual freedom? It must first be assured that the individual has human liberty: liberty of thought and feeling, liberty of tastes and pursuits, and freedom to unite. Of course, in society these liberties can not be one hundred percent free of exception. For example, one can not injure another because this would infringe upon his rights. Also, because society provides safety to a citizen, he must bear his share of societal labors. This includes working enough to sustain oneself, as well as defending the country from invasion. Mainly, if a person is not harming another person, it is not any ones business what he does. Harm, however, can be caused by inaction. By not providing evidence in the court of law or by not helping an injured person, society is harmed as well. What about harm to oneself? If a child harms himself, it is common sense to punish him because he does not know any better; but an adult who has been educated about the harm of things in life, has every right to harm himself if he wishes. An adult who is using drugs because that is the life he lives, can only be educated about the damage drugs may cause, but he can not be forcefully restricted from this because he is not harming anyone else. After all, not believing in using drugs is merely an opinion, the drug user respects this opinion, but kindly rejects it. Opinions can be expressed, but not forced upon someone. Enough subtle force is used just because he is not sharing the opinion of the majority. "A person who shows rashness, obstinacy, self-conceit, must expect to be lowered in the opinion of others, and to have less a share of their favorable sentiments." (Mill, page 340, paragraph 1) Education/debate can be used on these individuals, but never force. Overall, general rules are all that is needed to maintain society, on matters of opinion, people will determine their own definition of "duty to self," and live accordingly. Through out his paper, Mill showed some somewhat pessimistic attitudes. He stated that it is a false belief that truth always overcomes suppression is refuted by experience, because persecution has always succeeded. It is true that persecution breaks down the first line, but in the end, truth prevails, because if truth didn't prevail, how would we even know if the persecution kept it down? He also says, "There never has been, nor ever will be, in that atmosphere (of mental slavery) an intellectually active people." (Mill, page 332, paragraph 1) This is a little less pessimistic in that he realizes humans have a chance to actually becoming rational beings. Just looking how far we have come since Mill's day is a great hope builder, it's like going from slavery to segregation, we still have a long way to go.