Publication: John Stuart Mill's freedom of expression : a critical study
Submitted Date
Received Date
Accepted Date
Issued Date
2012
Copyright Date
Announcement No.
Application No.
Patent No.
Valid Date
Resource Type
Edition
Resource Version
Language
en
File Type
No. of Pages/File Size
ISBN
ISSN
eISSN
DOI
Scopus ID
WOS ID
Pubmed ID
arXiv ID
item.page.harrt.identifier.callno
Other identifier(s)
Journal Title
Volume
Issue
Edition
Start Page
End Page
Access Rights
Access Status
Rights
Rights Holder(s)
Physical Location
Bibliographic Citation
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Title
John Stuart Mill's freedom of expression : a critical study
Alternative Title(s)
Author(s)
Author’s Affiliation
Author's E-mail
Editor(s)
Editor’s Affiliation
Corresponding person(s)
Creator(s)
Compiler
Advisor(s)
Illustrator(s)
Applicant(s)
Inventor(s)
Issuer
Assignee
Other Contributor(s)
Series
Has Part
Abstract
This research demonstrated that Mill's freedom of expression is a tolerant, liberal position that is progressive in essence and upholds a dialogical, pluralistic spirit. Mill's freedom of expression is central to his liberalism and promotes a strong sense of individuality. He claims that there should be absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects-practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological. He also reinforces his position by stating that if all humankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, humankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he (if he had the power) would be justified in silencing humankind. Mill provides four arguments to support his position: the human fallibility argument
the necessity-of-error argument
the pursuit-of-truth argument
and the synthetic truth argument. In addition, he provides responses to criticism of these arguments. After presenting these arguments, Mill claims that since people receive the protection of society, they owe certain conduct in return. Thus he does not support unbridled freedom of expression without any limits. The limitation he places on free expression is "one very simple principle", now commonly called the Harm Principle, which states that the only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. A variety of critics have put forward six main counter-arguments on Mill's stands on: inequality
self-regarding acts
individuality
epistemological complications
the downplaying of the harm principle
and the insufficiency of the harm principle. Equality, immunity of self-regarding acts, liberating individuality, an epistemological stance, and the sufficiency of liberty (or the harm principle): these are the main elements of Mill's liberal thought on freedom of expression. His position is a tolerant, liberal one because it supports a liberal society where individuals tolerate differing and opposing opinions on all subjects. Thus different views on any subject are treated equally and dialogically where a pluralistic spirit works and where people are left with their choices after every opinion on any subject is allowed to be told and heard. The responses to six main counter-f}rguments here recognize Mill's milieu in understanding his transitional nature, the difference between his positions and steps, and between his long-term goals and short-term remedies. More in1portant, appr~ciating his position on freedom of expression that ~e defends so rigorously and that he thinks a civilized nation should embrace is worthy of study.
the necessity-of-error argument
the pursuit-of-truth argument
and the synthetic truth argument. In addition, he provides responses to criticism of these arguments. After presenting these arguments, Mill claims that since people receive the protection of society, they owe certain conduct in return. Thus he does not support unbridled freedom of expression without any limits. The limitation he places on free expression is "one very simple principle", now commonly called the Harm Principle, which states that the only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. A variety of critics have put forward six main counter-arguments on Mill's stands on: inequality
self-regarding acts
individuality
epistemological complications
the downplaying of the harm principle
and the insufficiency of the harm principle. Equality, immunity of self-regarding acts, liberating individuality, an epistemological stance, and the sufficiency of liberty (or the harm principle): these are the main elements of Mill's liberal thought on freedom of expression. His position is a tolerant, liberal one because it supports a liberal society where individuals tolerate differing and opposing opinions on all subjects. Thus different views on any subject are treated equally and dialogically where a pluralistic spirit works and where people are left with their choices after every opinion on any subject is allowed to be told and heard. The responses to six main counter-f}rguments here recognize Mill's milieu in understanding his transitional nature, the difference between his positions and steps, and between his long-term goals and short-term remedies. More in1portant, appr~ciating his position on freedom of expression that ~e defends so rigorously and that he thinks a civilized nation should embrace is worthy of study.
Table of contents
Description
Sponsorship
Degree Name
ปรัชญาดุษฎีบัณฑิต
Degree Level
ปริญญาเอก
Degree Department
บัณฑิตวิทยาลัย
Degree Discipline
Degree Grantor(s)
มหาวิทยาลัยอัสสัมชัญ