JESSIE & MELISSA & KIA WOON- { BABABA :D }

Sunday, March 30, 2008

1:34 PM

John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle

The harm principle states that:

“...the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. ”

Basically, J.S Mill is an advocate of freedom of speech. He believes that everyone should have their own choice to do what they want, to speak what they feel is correct, without being censored, all it would be an infringement of their human rights. The Harm Principle works on the assumption that every adult has full control over their own actions. Everyone should be allowed to speak freely, unless what they say harms others. And by harm, J.S Mill means direct harm such as physical injury or damage to property. He even suggests that it is of beneficial effect to have an opposing idea or view; much like “survival of the fittest”, it is only through argument and critical assessment of your own idea, then can you fully believe in it, not just by accepting it.

I do agree, to a certain extent, with the Harm Principle. I do not believe that we should be disallowed access to certain views, opinions, or other forms of media on topics of sensitive issues.

The problem, though, is that freedom of speech is not just a simple black and white issue. There are many areas in which one person’s perception of freedom of speech is different, and overlapping, with another’s assumption of free speech. Liberty is not something easily defined.

In today’s self centered society, many insist on their human rights, that there should be freedom of speech; since it is their thoughts, their beliefs, their opinions, no other person should exercise control over it. However, what many fail to understand is that it is not about them themselves alone. There are billions other people out there, each with their own opinion, their own thoughts and beliefs. Evidently, there are bound to be instances where your personal belief infringes another, and your views will be challenged by others. This is where the Harm Principle comes in. According to what J.S Mill says, you are free to say “Islam is not a true religion”. If you say it to yourself, that is perfectly fine. Otherwise, if you announce it on national TV, you are liable to censorship. Obviously, it is impossible not to cause harm to others with this opinion. Such a view would spark controversy, causing rage amongst Muslims and possibly even riots, thereby causing harm, as was the case in the ridicule of Prophet Muhammad through cartoons published in Danish newspapers. This is when censorship has to be put in place, and there is no total freedom of speech.

What I do not agree with, though, is that J.S Mill’s Harm principle only applies to adults. According to him, children should not be granted freedom. I feel that it should not be so as children, however young they are, form their own opinions and have their own views too. Should it be so that they cannot have total freedom just because their thinking is not matured or fully formed? After all, children eventually grow into adults. I feel that they too, should have rights on their freedom of speech, so that they can learn from young that they need to take responsibility for their actions.

Furthermore, John Stuart Mill lived in the nineteenth century. Since then, human interaction has evolved. What the Harm Principle states may not be as applicable as it was back then. However, it is this very principle concerning liberty that was the forerunner of this very important concept which continues to cause much debate today, one hundred and fifty years after it was written.

Kia Woon

References:

http://www.philosophyetc.net/2004/06/on-liberty.html

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/

http://davidhildebrand.org/teaching/handouts/mill.php

0 comments
Saturday, March 29, 2008

11:08 PM

Reading 3 is about freedom of expression being based on responsibility whereas Reading 4 is about freedom of expression being based on decision of state. I subscribe to Reading 3's views as i believe that everyone should e responsible of their own words. What many people do not know is that they might have hurt people's feelings unknowingly with their criticisms. Since people are granted with with freedom of expression, they should treasure it and be responsible by not posting any unnecessary criticisms and comments. Leave out the racist words which can make people live in fear. Stop the homophobic rantings which can legitimise discrimination. Exclude the sexist words which can buttress sexist practice. We should have the responsibility to censor away "unhealthy" words which are offensive. Take the furore over the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed as an example. The press, given the freedom to express themselves, have abused this trust and misplaced their responsibility. Yet, they refused to take responsibility of the racist issues they have caused. Instead, they denied, blamed and argued on freedom of expression. The press, as a massive broadcasting tool, should take up the responsibility of censoring away "unhealthy: news and removing unnecessary comments.

It would be disastrous if it would have taken the state to control freedom of expression. It means that citizens are not able to control themselves. What if movies such as Da Vinci Code, that are offensive to Christians, get banned by the state? This will mean that the state does not trust her people and is afraid that if such movies are screened, there would have outbreaks of riots. (e.g protests by the Christians against the screening of Da Vinci Code movie). How would people react if freedom of expression is taken away from them by the state? i fee that it is impossible to live in a world where you are not able to express yourself freely. Citizens would seem like puppets and the state would be a totalitarian one. Opinions are not allowed to be voice out, hence citizens have to follow and obey what the state says.

Therefore, it should be noted that freedom of expression should NEVER EVER come under the control of the state. Instead, all who are granted freedom of expression should treasure it and understand that it comes with responsibility. With that, people will truly appreciate freedom of expression.

Jessie :)

0 comments

11:55 AM

I feel that Singapore should adopt Szilagyi’s view of placing more focus on social responsibility. In a multi-racial society like Singapore, the wide array of cultures and religions here make us susceptible to internal conflicts. As such, issues pertaining to these are very sensitive and cannot be neglected. If everyone does not have regard for each other’s culture and religion, it would be impossible for the people of Singapore to coexist. A crude, gratuitous remark could spark off tensions among the different racial and religious groups. This may lead to discontent and unhappiness among people. In addition, it may cause the younger generation to grow up with bias against fellow Singaporeans of other races or religions, causing a social split in the country. This can be seen in the conflict between the Protestants and Catholics of Northern Ireland, whereby children were put into schools based on their religions. As interactions between both religious groups were minimal, the children often grew up not knowing, or having negative views about one another. If there is no social responsibility in Singapore, racial harmony would not be possible and we may face this problem in the future.

Another more detrimental outcome would be the breakdown of relations among the different racial and religious groups. If nothing is done to appease and mend the ties of these groups, Singapore might be faced with a race riot on its hands. It once happened on 21st July 1964, when discontent between Malays and Chinese sparked off a race riot. This led to the death of 23 people, a curfew and the destruction of property. As such, race riot not only takes a toll on the citizens, but would also strain our country’s economy as a substantial amount of money would have to be used to rebuild the destructed properties. Instability in the country would also affect our tourism and trading industry, which accounts for a large part of Singapore’s revenue. It might result in the lost of confidence in Singapore’s future, causing current investors to pull out, and also affect our reputation as a vibrant and reliable investment hub, which Singapore has painstakingly built up over the years. Recently, Malaysia’s stocks plunged after the election results reviewed that the opposition parties won key states like Penang. This shows the pertinence of stability.

However, we should not assume that freedom of expression is totally negative. As a democratic country, I believe that freedom of expression should be practised, but only to a certain extent. Without freedom of expression, new ideas cannot be generated and our society would come to a standstill. Without freedom of expression, people would just be told what to do without having the ability to think for themselves. Though less severe, this bears resemblance to Russia’s situation under Stalin’s rule, whereby censorship and propaganda swayed the views of people.

In conclusion, I believe that Singapore should practise freedom of expression coupled with social responsibility to make our country an open, yet cohesive society.