This is in my humble opinion the best essay I wrote the past semester. If it is not the best it was at least my favorite one. It was also the most fun to write. As you can see I wrote it for my philosophy class. My instructions for the paper were:
What is J. S. Mill's account of the value of political liberty, in freedom of action and freedom of thought?
Explain his views and his attempt to convince people that even false views about religion, reality, or the value of different ways of living should be freely expressed and acted out. For your thesis take one example of a view or way of living that some groups have found offensive or religiously incorrect, explore that controversy and support your thesis about whether on that question freedom to spread those ideas or those ways of living should be permitted completely, or with restrictions.
Make your thesis clear by putting it in bold and maybe even using a phrase such as "this paper will support the view that..."
With that intro here is my paper.
Eric Beerbower
Intro to Philosophy
Dr. Purviance
26 February 2013
In Defense of the Christian Explanation of Liberty
John
Stuart Mill was a nineteenth century philosopher. He believed in utilitarianism. Utilitarianism
is the belief that you should do that which has the greatest benefit for the
most number of people. Benefit over harm--choose the lesser of two evils. Two of
the main freedoms that Mill espoused were Freedom
of Thought and Freedom of Action.
J. S. Mills’ position on the Freedom of Thought is made up of several
propositions. One is that people have the
right to express their views, thoughts, and opinions, without fear of
repercussions. Even if they are false, they can be beneficial to society. One of the ways a false view can benefit
society is that it keeps truth real. Mill says that if humans do not have the
liberty to discuss ideas without fear of reprisal, then they will be held as
“mere dogma” and not “living truth.” (Political Philosophy, pg. 110). Another danger is that by suppressing
differing views or ones that you consider false, you may inadvertently suppress
the truth.
J. S. Mills’ second freedom, the Freedom of
Action states individuals have freedom to do what they desire, as
long as it does not harm anyone. This Law of Harm is key to all of J. S. Mills’
ideas. We have the freedom to do that which we want to do as long as it does not
interfere or harm others. The key to understanding this Freedom is to know what
constitutes harm. Harm does not
constitute things that society finds annoying or just does not like. Rather, Mill
says that it is harmful if they are detrimental to the “interests” of another
person. (Political Philosophy, pg.113).
The reason people should be worried about harming one another is that
humans can progress and are progressing. However, if we are harming one another
it is detrimental to society because it inhibits growth and progress.
Now let us turn from the hypothetical and look at
a real-life example. This essay will
discuss certain aspects of Christianity.
It will look at orthodox
Christianity to see if it agrees with Mills’ Freedoms and if Christianity
should be allowed to exist. This essay argues that the Freedom of Thought
and Freedom of Action are not adequate, because without an ultimate source
(God) you have no basis for any Freedoms. The goal of this essay is to prove
that without God you cannot establish any rights or freedoms.
Mills’ does not believe in natural
rights. Not believing in natural rights
is consistent with his worldview. In
fact, there is no basis for natural rights without God. So Mills’ explanation as to why an individual
or society should adhere to the freedoms he expressed was that he thought they brought about the greatest
happiness for mankind.
There are two spheres in which humans operate,
and according to Mill, those should be governed by different rules. One is the public sphere and the second is
the private. Mills’ does not believe
that the private sphere should be heavily regulated (if at all), as that brings
greater happiness to more people. Whereas the public sphere will have many
regulations so that there will be the greatest amount of happiness for people.
There are many problems with Mill’s views.
Where do we draw the line between public and private spheres? How do we measure happiness? Will liberty really promote the happiness and
joy as he believes?
The biggest problem with Mills' philosophy may be that he has no
basis for human happiness. There is no
way to measure human happiness, and even if there were, why should humans have
the right to be happy? Utilitarianism
claims that we choose the lesser evil, benefit over harm. But how do we know what the best benefit is? How do we know what is most harmful? By what standard do we judge these? These are serious questions and must be
answered. A man that rapes a girls is
getting pleasure out of it. Obviously the girl is being harmed. It would be a rare person who would deny
that; however, if you do not have a universal standard of right and wrong, how
can it be said that what he is doing is wrong?
If the standard is happiness and benefit over harm, how can his
happiness be compared to her unhappiness? Which is greater?
Now, this example may be offensive to people,
but there is a point to it. Christians would say that it is wrong because God
says it is wrong. God made them in His image and gave mankind certain rights.
These rights have been implanted in mankind’s heart. That is where we get the so-called natural
rights—which Mill does not believe in.
For a
Christian, this problem is non-existent.
God determines right and wrong, and since He is God, those rules are
universal. The response to this might be
that society determines what is best and moral for people, and that we get our
freedoms from society. But once again
the Christian may ask: On what foundation does society make its decision? And is its decision binding? What about Hitler’s society? If there are no moral absolutes on what basis
can we say that he was wrong?
The non-Christian may respond: Everyone has
the right to life, so it is wrong for Hitler to have murder the Jews. Again the Christian will ask: On what basis
do you call it wrong? Without an
absolute lawgiver there cannot be an absolute law. If murder is wrong it has to have always been
wrong and it has to be wrong for everyone.
Back to the freedoms propounded by Mill and
other utilitarians. These freedoms can
have no basis unless they are founded on God and the Bible. However, a Christian can agree with these
freedoms, although they could be improved upon.
Christians, for the most part, are willing to
discuss their beliefs. They have no problem with an open forum to propound
ideas—without fear of persecution. They
would agree that in a open discussion people can come to know the truth. After
all the Bible tells them to have a defense for the hope that is within them (1
Peter 3:15). And again our God says “come let us reason together.” (Isaiah 1:18)
The other freedom is Freedom of Action. Here the Christian and the
utilitarian part ways. In the Bible
there are clear directions as to how people ought to live their lives. In
the Old Testament there are the ten
commandments and in the New there is the Sermon on the Mount. These are just a few of the many examples in Scriptures
of how we ought to act. The difference between Mills’ Freedom of Action and the
Biblical way is this: Mill and the utilitarians
believe that as long as you are not harming society or other people anything is
allowable. The Christian says that nothing that contradicts God’s commandments
is allowable.
One caveat should be made. There are certain laws that the Christian
would say everyone is obligated to obey, e.g., do not murder. Whoever breaks them will be punished. There are other laws of God that (although
they are equally important and everyone should
be obligated to obey them), will not be punished in the same way. An example of that would be coveting and
disrespecting parents. These are not and
cannot be punished in the same way.
However, these are still very serious sins against God and He will deal
with them. (NOTE: This is a critque made by Renton Rathbun. "I would only point out that in both the OT and the NT the penalty for disobeying one of the ten commandments was almost in all cases death. In Leviticus, a disobedient child was put to death just like a murderer was. The coveter would be put to death if it lead to adultery. In the NT Ananias and Sapphira were killed instantly for lying. And Paul says in Corinthians that if you take the Lord's supper while violating God's Law you might be killed. So, you are right that physical death was not always the result of disobedience to the Law, but in both testaments the death penalty was carried out for violations. I say that only to remind us that although the forgiveness of God is miraculous, the damage of sin is equally devastating both before Christ as it is now.")
Now, one might ask why these Christians say
they have these ideals but do not live up to them. If their God is really going to punish these
sins, are not they just as guilty as the rest of mankind? Yes indeed they are, until God does an
amazing work in them. Before believing
and trusting in God a Christian is no different than the rest of the world. But
when God calls them and they believe in Christ Jesus, they are
transformed. Jesus Christ was sent to
earth and lived as a man. He was tempted like all mankind, but He was
without sin. When He died on the cross,
He completed a legal transaction with His Father (God). When we believe on Christ, His blood atones
for our sin. Elsewhere in the Bible it says that without the shedding of blood
there is no forgiveness of sins. The Christian
is not without sin. The Christian
violates God’s laws just like everyone else. The difference is they are
forgiven.
In the utilitarian worldview there is no
basis for the punishment of those who break its rules. Because they cannot appeal to a higher
standard. Notice the claim IS NOT that
the utilitarians are amoral, but that there is no foundation for their morality, or for holding anyone accountable
to their morality.
On the other hand, Christians have a basis
for their morality (God), and because of that they have a consistency of which
the utilitarian is unable to achieve. In addition, the Christian can
consistently punish evildoers, because they have a universal law. The law applies to all mankind without
exception. Therefore although Mills’
Freedoms have some truth to them he does not give adequate reasons as to why
they should be obeyed.
Well, that was a longer post but I did have fun writing it. And now as I reread it I see so many undeveloped parts that I may have to go through and add to it. But that is a project for another time.
God Bless.
Eric Beerbower
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." Romans 1:16
