Category Archives: Liberalism

Is there such a thing as Free Speech in Schools?

Free Speech, Freedom, Liberalism

 

Many schools are currently under attack by conservative parents for what is being taught in schools. Next month they might be under attack by left-wing parents. Is there such a thing as free speech in schools?

 

Recently a School board in Tennessee banned from its school district a Pulitzer prize-winning book called Maus in which Jews were mice and Nazis were cats. One of the reasons for the ban was that it was  seen to be pornographic because it showed a graphic of a naked mouse with a breast showing. Can that be pornographic? The idea was that the mouse represented Jews and a cat that looked vicious represented Nazis. It was the author’s way of making the notion of the holocaust graphic. The parents also felt that the book made their children uncomfortable. Should a book about the Holocaust not make people uncomfortable? I would be more tempted to ban a book about the Holocaust that made young students comfortable.

All of this reminds me a bit about the recent film Don’t Look Up where scientists were going on television talk show to warn the world about the impending disastrous collision of a comet with earth that would lead to the destruction of all or most life on earth. The talk show hosts explained to the scientists that in the brief time they had to explain the phenomenon they should “keep it light and fun.” Is that what we want?

In Florida, a committee advanced a bill that would restrict discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity in schools because that is popular in conservative circles. The bill bans discussing these issues in primary schools but also restricts how these things can be discussed in other grades too if they are deemed “not age-inappropriate.” Any parent will be able to sue the school for compensation if they are harmed if they believe such discussions took place. No doubt such legislation will make teachers reluctant to discuss such issues in school. Is that a good thing? Should parents not have a say about what is taught in their schools? Or do students have rights to learn? Interesting questions.

 

Many American schools are banning discussions about critical race theory by which they mean any discussions that might tend to make their children think less of Americans and their treatment of racial minorities. Should such discussions not be welcomed rather than banned? Are such discussions too uncomfortable for adults or even children? Don’t we want our children to learn such things?

In the US many of the attacks on free speech are found in schools. Since January of 2020 Republican lawmakers in 41 states (if I counted correctly) have introduced 156 laws that limit how teachers can speak to their students about race, sexual orientation and gender in schools. As Jennifer Given who teaches history in New Hampshire, one of those 41 or so states, says these are scary times to be a teacher. She might be sued for what she says in class. Why do so many people no longer trust their teachers? As a result of these restrictions Given said “many teachers are self-censoring” and avoiding speaking about certain sensitive subjects. Don’t we want our students to learn about sensitive subjects? Even if the teacher’s views vary from our own? Don’t we want our students exposed to other ideas? After all they might then be able to teach us a thing or two? In the Hanover School Division in Steinbach they attempted to stop teachers in some cases from talking about “sensitive subjects” such as LGBTQ topics. Is that acceptable? What if discussions are merely excluded from early years in school?

Yet if parents are entitled to know what is being taught to their children in schools and object to things they  don’t want the teachers to teach to their children, they have that right and  to that extent their free speech is lost. But only in schools. They can say what they want out of school. Is it that simple?

Students of course have no right to free speech. Or at least we didn’t when I went to school.

In New Hampshire, a conservative group is offering a $500 bounty to anyone who turns in a teacher who violates their new law that limits what teachers can say about racism and sexism! As Given said, “The ghost of Senator McCarthy is alive and well in some of our statehouse hallways.” She might actually lose her license to teach, rendering her unemployable perhaps in any jurisdiction not only her own. As the CBS host pointed out, “But this is New Hampshire the land of ‘live free or die.’” Now these are tricky free speech issues because teachers have to some extent always been restricted in what they could talk about in schools. For example school boards decide when sex education is taught (or not). Employers too can limit what their employees say in their workplace. Does that violate free speech?

There are many questions worth pursuing here. I look forward to trying to tackle them. I would like to hear your views too.

 

 

Questions about the Meaning of Free Speech

Free Speech, Freedom, Liberalism

 

The subject of free speech seems simple. It is not. I am in favour of free speech. Of course I am. Lots of people have had a lot to say about. Even I. But what actually does that mean?

I want to look more closely at this question to figure out what I mean by the statement which I have often made that I believe in free speech. What do I mean by it and what not? What do others mean by it?

I know there are aspects of free speech that I admit are a bit tricky.

I was inspired to consider this issue by considering the words of the author Evelyn Beatrice Hall who said this: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” That is a pretty bold claim. Does anyone actually mean that? Voltaire was one of my favourite philosophers and many think he said that. He said many interesting things but not that.

Sometimes, rarely perhaps, lawyers and judges can impart some wisdom to such ideas. The courts have often considered this issue particularly our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as it relates to freedom of expression and conscience. I want to look at what the Charter has to say. One of those judges who has opined on free speech, the American Supreme Court Judge, Louis Brandeis, said when asked if we should try to shut up speech we don’t like: “The remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” Yet, how true is that statement?

We live in the age of the. Internet. In fact, we live in the wild west of the internet which abounds with free speech and much of it is abysmally ignorant, but incredibly dangerous, as we have realized in the Age of Covid, if we did not realize it earlier.

Recently, there have been serious efforts in the United States (the land of the free no less) and, of course, many other places, to limit free speech. Here are a few examples: Twitter banned President Trump permanently (supposedly) from Twitter. Was that right? A lot of Trump’s speech was hateful. Much of it consisted of lies. And much of it encouraged dangerous, reckless, and hateful behavior. Yet he is a controversial political figure revered by millions of Americans. Should we not be able to listen to him? Should such speech be limited? Does it matter that Twitter is a corporation beyond democratic control? Should Jack Dorsey and his partners who own it be able to shut down the president of the United States from their platform? How about Greenpeace? Or the Church of God Restoration? Or your local Satanists?  Should they be shut down? As a corporation owned privately or publicly traded should it be able to do that? How about Mark Zuckerberg should he have such power. His Meta (Facebook) empire already brags about the number of people it ejects from its platforms every day. Are we comfortable with that?

Remember I just ask questions. I never give answers (I wish that were actually true.) As Voltaire said, “Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.”

There are lots of questions worth pursuing here.

 

Protecting Speech that you Hate

Free Speech, Freedom, Liberalism

 

There is one thing a lot of people seem to forget about free speech. Those of us who actually believe in free speech are those who work to protect the speech we hate. It is not about protecting the speech of those with whom we agree. It is not about protecting the speech of our friends. It is about protecting speech  we despise .  Fro example, if you are a Christian you should fight to protect the speech of Satanists. That is what we must work to defend. If we are not able to do that we don’t really believe in free speech at all.

 

It reminds me of what I learned from watching minor hockey. Frankly, I was disgusted by my fellow parents when I watched my young sons play minor hockey. With hair trigger tempers, many of these parents turned viciously on young referees who were often only a couple of years older than our children. The parents saw every perceived mistake as an assault on their perfect children and complained vociferously about each call while ignoring the mistake of their own children. I never saw them complaining about mistaken calls in our own favor, only those against us. As a result I lost all respect for their claims that the young referees were making unpardonable mistakes. Had the parent complained equally about all mistaken calls I might have taken them seriously. It is the same with free speech. Defend all speech or admit you don’t really favour free speech at all.

 

Although I don’t know much about the attack on Salman Rushdie by a man wielding a knife perhaps because he is despised by much of the Muslim world because they don’t like what he said about their religious leader, Rushdie said this about on the topic: “The defense of free speech begins at the point where they say something you can’t stand. You often have to defend people you find outrageous, unpleasant and disgusting.”

 

It is not important to fight for people to have the freedom to say things you like. You have to have the capacity to listen to people whose opinions you strongly disagree with. Even if you hate their opinions or even hate them. As Piers Morgan, of Piers Morgan Uncensored said the day Rushdie was attacked, “you should be able to tolerate their right to have a different opinion.”

In most Muslim countries this is not on the table. They don’t want that. They resist the right of someone like Rushdie to express his views. More and more in the United States and Canada this point of view is gaining strength. That is why, it seems to me, free speech is on the decline.

According to a recent study in the UK. 86% of students want a trigger warning before they hear something offensive. This even includes classics of English literature like Canterbury Tales and Shakespeare. 36% want academics fired if they say something hurtful or offensive. If speech is not even free in Universities where is it free?

Rikki Schlott a columnist with New York Post mentioned how New York University issues student cards on which it placed a bias hotline for you to phone if you are offended by something you hear.

Many liberals now claim words are violence. If that is true, as Schlott said, then you must fight words with violence because that is how you fight violence with violence. Does that not follow?

Why are young people in particular so anxious? They fear words. They want trigger warnings. Is it because they have been coddled all their lives? I think this is part of the problem

According, to Piers Morgan there is “a celebration of victimhood in society.”  There is prestige in being a victim. People want to be victims because it gives them special status. He of course blames “the woke brigade.” I don’t doubt that extreme liberals are often at fault, but so are extreme conservatives. Are they all woke? Who is left to defend free speech?

It’s Good to be Disturbed

Freedom, Human rights, Liberalism

 

In Viet Thanh Nguyen’s article in the New York Times called, “My Young Mind he said he was Disturbed by a Book. “It Changed My Life.” That was what said that when he was young, probably 12 or 13, and he read Larry Heinemann’s 1977 novel, Close Quarters. He was horrified when he read that book. He was born in Vietnam but was an immigrant to the US.

He was shocked to learn what some American soldiers thought about Vietnamese people like him and the book depicted horrifying scenes of rape and murder. Hard stuff for a boy so young to read. He said he hated the book. He hated what it said of his adopted country. Should he have been protected from reading a book like that? He said no. Though he hated the book he thought it was ultimately good for him to have read the book. He had been able to read the book because he was in a library where there are no boundaries and he was allowed to go into the adult section and find and read such a book. He was disturbed by the book and even said he hated it at the time. He thought it was a terrible novel.

Nguyen read the book again when he was an adult because he was writing a book about that war too. He realized Heinemann had done exactly what a good writer should do. He made Nguyen realize how terrible war was. “He did not want to give his readers an explanation or editorial. He did not want to humanize the Vietnamese people because from the perspective of the American soldiers he was depicting, the Vietnamese were not human. That was the point. He knew they were human, but they were not depicted that way. Why was that? It made him think. Discomfort can be a good thing. It is not something to be feared, even for a young boy.

“Writers want to entertain their readers, but also confront them”, said Nguyen. That is the writer’s prerogative. That is what writers can do in a free and democratic society. That is what they should do in a free and democratic society. Writers often want to disturb readers out of their slumber. Even children should be disturbed.

 As Nguyen said in his New York Times article:

“The novel was a damning indictment of American warfare and the racist attitudes held by some nice, average Americans that led to slaughter and rape. Mr. Heinemann revealed America’s heart of darkness. He didn’t offer readers the comfort of a way out by editorializing or sentimentalizing or humanizing Vietnamese people, because in the mind of the book’s narrator and his fellow soldiers, the Vietnamese were not human.”

 

I remember once when my boys were very young, and Chris’s uncle had died, we discussed whether we should bring our boys to the funeral or not. They had never been to a funeral before. They didn’t know much about death. I remember our youngest son, Stef, asked, as the coffin was lowered into the grave, “Are uncle Joe’s bones in there?” “Yup,” was our answer the bones of their great uncle were in that coffin. Should a young lad not learn that? Would it disturb them? Maybe. So be it.

Many people currently want to protect young people from disturbing truths. They want the children to think their country is always right, even when it isn’t. That happens in both Canada and the United States.

Confronting readers or disturbing them “can make them think twice,” said Nguyen. I think that is a lot better than not thinking at all. As he also said, “That is exactly the function that, books, schools, and curricula should have. It’s not always about making us feel comfortable, it’s about helping us to confront difficult realities and difficult pasts as well.”

Isn’t it better to get disturbed than to slumber?

 

Banning Books: I thought conservatives loved freedom?

Freedom, Liberalism

More and more conservatives (and liberals too)  in the US and Canada, who used to believe in freedom are demanding the right to control what other people read. In 2022 many of them  worked hard to ban books.  In Indiana Republican lawmakers are pushing a bill to protect students from “harmful materials at libraries.”  In other words, they want to ban books. Recently Republicans members of a School Board in Tennessee  School Board banned Pulitzer prize-wining graphic novel Maus by Art Spiegleman. That book seems to be about t cats and mice, but is really about Nazis and Jews. Guess who are the cats?

Another Pulitzer prize winning writer, Viet Thanh Nguyen  recently wrote an article in the New York Times called, “My Young Mind was Disturbed by a Book. It Changed My Life.”

As Nguyen said, about banning the book Maus,

“Part of a democracy is having the capacity to engage with difficult, or disagreeable, or even dangerous ideas. So about the banning of a book like Maus, number one I feel sorry for the students or children who would be deprived of the opportunity to read a great book! But number 2, I think it also shows a lot of fear on the part of the parents and politicians who are banning books like Maus because what they don’t want to do is have difficult conversations with their children either about art or about the subjects that a book like Maus raises.”

 

Part of the rationale the Tennessee school board had to ban Maus was that the book contained scenes of nudity, profanity, and violence.  People objected to the images in the book that showed bare breasted cats (Jews) who were being assaulted by the Nazi cats.

Well, if you want your children or yourself to learn something about the Holocaust they probably have to learn something about nudity, profanity and violence. They sort of come with the territory.  Should young children be protected from learning about nudity, profanity, and violence?  Should the parents or the school board have the right to ban such a book?

Not in my view. Personally, I have young grandchildren and worry about what they learn when unsupervised on the internet or playing video games and things like that. I wish they had someone to curate what they watched or put it into proper context. That is something a teacher or librarian or parent could and should do.

Maus has been curated by a thinking author. It is not pornography. It does show a naked mouse in a bathtub! Horrors! The proper context for discussing such a book would be with a librarian, or teacher, or parent who can teach the context. The problem really is that children have contact with a lot of violence, profanity and nudity outside the classroom. That is where they are unsupervised and there is no one around often to put those things into context. Parents should be much more concerned about that, though I am not arguing in favor of censoring that either. I am in favor of parents and teachers and librarians helping students to understand what they are doing when they go to the internet or social media.

The American Library Association has called banning Maus a part of “an organized assault on the freedom to read.” The freedom to read is a pretty important freedom. One would have thought that in America, the land of the free, the freedom to read would be sacrosanct. It’s not. In fact, it’s under threat.  There have been more than 300 challenges since the school year began.

I was on the board of the Steinbach Public Library many years ago, and I remember we had some challenges too. I was proud that our little board in a very conservative town filled with evangelicals dealt with most of the complaints we received quite well.  Instead of banning books we worked on a statement of intellectual freedom of which I was quite proud. We were armed for the next challenge, which never came while I was on the board. Darn!

Christiane had a problem when she was the chair of the Parent Teacher Association at a local school when a parent objected to a Judy Blume book in the school library even though she had not read it, because she did not like the cover because it suggested to her in some bizarre manner, witchcraft, which she presumed to be wicked. Chris read the book and found it was an excellent book and thankfully, the book was not eliminated from the school library. When I was on the Library board one of our policies would be that we would not consider a complaint about a book by a person unless the person said he or she had read the book.

Freedom can be tricky. I don’t believe in absolute freedom like the members of the mandates convoy. Freedoms can conflict. Nuance is needed to balance one against the other to determine what limits on the freedom are tolerable and what limits are not.

 

Banning or censoring a book should be the last resort (if at all).  We need to protect children and we must help them to read wisely. Banning books is a crude instrument.

The Uncertainty Principle

Abortion, Ethics, Liberalism, Skeptical Philosophy

 

When we recognize that there is uncertainty in a debate, such as the debate about whether or not abortions should be banned or prohibited, we should realize some fundamentally important things. In this respect I have learned a lot from the British philosopher Bertrand Russell. This is the principle that he stood for:

“In the sphere of practical politics, this intellectual attitude has important consequences. In the first place, it is not worth while to inflict a comparatively certain present evil for the sake of a comparatively doubtful future good. If the theology of former times was entirely correct, it was worthwhile burning a number of people at the stake in order that survivors might go to heaven, but if it was doubtful whether heretics would go to hell, the argument for persecution was not valid. If it is certain that Marx’s eschatology is true, and that as soon private capitalism is abolished we shall all be happy ever after, then it is right to pursue this end by means of dictatorships, concentration camps, and world wars; but if the end is doubtful or the means not sure to achieve it, present misery becomes an irresistible argument against such drastic methods. If it were certain without Jews the world would be a paradise, there could be no valid objection to Auschwitz; but if it is much more probable that the world resulting from such methods would be a hell, we can allow free play to our natural humanitarian revulsion against cruelty.”

 

The Russell principle, if I may call it that, is that it is wrong to inflict a certain harm to achieve a dubious good. The more uncertain the future goal one is trying to achieve the less must be the harm one employs to obtain it. It is permitted to inflict violence to avoid a certain greater harm, but it makes no sense to inflict a certain harm to avoid an uncertain future harm unless that future harm is much worse than the means. It has to be so much worse that the risk of inflicting unnecessary harms is justified in order to avoid such a catastrophic harm.

This requires a rational analysis of the probabilities. The more dubious the future goal the more gentle must be the means employed to obtain it. The problem with the modern utopians is that they inflict a certain substantial present harm to achieve not just a dubious future goal, but an impossible goal! As a result, since banning abortion inflicts a certain harm on the mother by removing her ability to choose abortion, we are not entitled to do that because we might be wrong. Perhaps the foetus is not a human life until birth when it is severed form the mother. Then it would be wrong to punish the mother.

 

I have explained why I think it is not rational to claim certainty in the abortion debate. Some think abortions are evil because they required the killing of a human being. Others think abortions are justified because the life at stake is the mother and she should be the one to decide what she should or should not do with it. The mother has autonomy to decides.

John Locke, the first of the great British empiricists, that Russell saw as his mentors, held that our knowledge is always uncertain and this fact should always be taken into consideration when we contemplate any action. When we are uncertain of being right or wrong we should take what Russell called the “liberal creed.” That is the philosophy of live and let live. We should not be fanatical. As Russell said, “The genuine Liberal does not say ‘this is true’, he says ‘I am inclined to think that under present circumstances this opinion is probably the best.” For example, he believed in democracy but even there he insisted on taking a limited and undogmatic view of democracy, because he might be wrong. He would advocate the same approach for the abortion question.

That was why Russell was more concerned with procedure than outcomes, when it came to political thinking. He urged the adoption of a political approach rather than a political dogma. Russell put it this way,

“The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment. This is the way in which opinions are held in science, as opposed to the way in which they are held in theology.”

 

Russell argued in favor of neither dogma nor absolute scepticism. He thought his views were somewhere between the two opposing positions. He called his political views Liberalism born from empiricism. The most important premise of that point of view is that all ‘knowledge’ is to some degree doubtful. Some of course more doubtful than others.

That is a perfect summary of my own political philosophy that I have drawn from Bertrand Russell, Albert Camus, John Gray, Michael Oakeshott and other political thinkers. Russell pointed out that if one could be certain that heretics would go to hell where they would suffer eternal torment, it made sense to burn heretics so that they would not lead others astray. If on the other hand it was doubtful that heretics would go to hell then persecution of them would not be justified. Doubt leads directly to toleration; certainty to persecution. If you know that you are fighting for God’s camp, any measures, no matter how awful are justified. As Bob Dylan put it, “you don’t count the dead with God on your side.” As Albert Camus said in his brilliant book, The Rebel, we must “refuse to be a god.”

I accept this approach. Since it is doubtful whether or not abortions result in the death of a human being, we should be modest in our actions—because we might be wrong. Inflicting certain harm on the mother is not justified until we can be certain we are right and that the harm we inflict is less than the harm we avert as a result of the imposition of the harm. Our duty is to choose the course of action which will inflict the least harm and promote the greatest good.

 

Vaccine Mandates are Morally Permitted

Epidemics/Pandemics, Freedom, Human rights, Liberalism

Vaccine Mandates are Morally Permitted

 

Mill’s principle says that the only reasonable limit on freedom is the prevention of harms to others. What is the harm in refusing to take vaccines?

The way I see it there are a number of  harms that are avoided by compelling others to take vaccines they do not want to take. One of them is that refusal to take vaccines gives the deadly virus that causes Covid-19 an increased opportunity to spread that it should not have. The longer the virus is allowed to circulate the more people can get infected, and seriously ill, or even die. The more people get vaccinated the better the chance is that the virus will be stopped in its tracks. Scientists have persuaded me that widespread vaccination is our best chance at stopping the virus. People who resist the vaccines are helping the virus to spread and infect others. This is a serious harm to others.

There is significant evidence that the virus can be spread by the vaccinated as well as the unvaccinated. If it were equally possible for either group to spread the virus there would be no reason for us to impose vaccines on others, on that  basis since it would not make a difference to others.  The chance of others  catching Covid-19 would then be no higher or lower than   Then a vaccine mandate would not justified on this basis at least.  So far as I have learned the spread is greater by the unvaccinated so I think the case is still strong that imposing a vaccine on others against their will is permissible to avoid the greater harm to others.

As well, the longer the virus is allowed to circulate unchecked the greater the chances that the virus will evolve and develop new variants that are even more dangerous than the ones we have now. This can endanger not just us in the vicinity but actually people around the world. We are seeing this right now around the world with the spread of the new virus Omicron. We also saw it earlier with the evolution of the Delta variant. New variants might be available to evade the vaccines again putting other people at great risk of harm.

These are serious harms that people who refused to get vaccinated without a sound medical exemption are inflicting on others, so, in my opinion, the majority has the right to compel people to take the vaccine. I think the case for vaccine mandates is a strong one.

Limits on Freedom

Epidemics/Pandemics, Ethics, Freedom, Liberalism

 

John Stuart Mill pointed out, more than 150 years ago, that much of what makes life good is dependent upon controlling or limiting interference by other people. This is really the basis of liberalism. This limitation is critical to the enjoyment of life. Some limits are absolutely necessary, while others are not.  His book On Liberty tries to define those limits. It is worth reading. I recently re-read it after many years.

In essence the problem, as Mill defined it, is that even in a democracy we must be able to resist the imposition of duties by the majority in some cases, though not all. For example, no one would argue that it is wrong to prohibit murder or assaults. Would the imposition of a vaccination mandate by the majority as represented by its elected  government fit into the category of permitted or non-permitted infringements of freedom? That is the question I am trying to answer in a meandering fashion. Mill sought a principle that would assist people in determining into which category an example or proposed example of government interference would fit.  I think that is a worthy goal.

This is the principle that Mill proposed:

“That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively 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 civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forebear 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. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him,  but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amendable 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.”

 

That is the reasonable limit on a person’s freedom.

Mill also reminds that this does not mean one can do whatever one chooses to do no matter what the consequences.  Famously, others have said, ‘your freedom to swing your hand stops at my nose’. They really mean at anyone else’s nose. Mill put it more elegantly this way: “The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our good in our way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.”

 Mill accepts only 1 important qualification, that this principle is only for the benefit of “human beings in the maturity of their faculties.” Children cannot claim the benefits of this principle, in Mill’s view, and must abide by instructions imposed on them by their parents, and to some extent even others.

With some qualifications that I won’t get into here, I accept this principle. How does this principle apply to the question at hand? How does it apply to the case of whether or not it is permitted for society to say we demand everyone to be vaccinated unless there is a good  reason for not doing so?

Clearly, on the basis of these principles, we should be allowed to take the vaccine or not, as we choose, so long as we do not harm others by our choice. I agree with that. Does refraining from taking the vaccine harm others? On its face, the vaccine is designed to protect ourselves from the most harmful effects of Covid-19. But this does not resolve the matter. Our choice can affect others. In other words, if the evidence establishes that my refusal to take the vaccine affects others that is significant, and if the harm caused is great enough could warrant an imposition that compels me to take the vaccine to some extent at least.

Tyranny of the Majority

Epidemics/Pandemics, Freedom, Human rights, Liberalism

 

John Stuart Mill also recognized that just because society made  decisions (such as to impose vaccine sanctions or not) in a democratic manner would not give the decision the right to override the essential liberties. There should be limits on the power of society through the ruler, even if a democratic ruler, over members of society—i.e. individuals. That is exactly what liberty means. Certain immunities or “political liberties or rights” would be so important that it would be regarded as a breach of the duty in the ruler” if he infringed them, even if that rule consisted of a democratic ruler, such as Parliament. As Mill said, “The limitation, therefore, of the power of government over individuals loses none of its importance when the holders of power are regularly accountable to the community.” Even democratic governments must abide by these limitations.

 

Mill recognized that the people, or a majority of the people, in some cases might want to oppress an individual or a part of a group.  Just like liberty is not absolute, so the power of the ruler/authority must therefore be limited or constrained as well and cannot be absolute. Some people forget this important aspect of Mill’s thought. Some people think that provided a decision is made by the majority they can do whatever they want. Mill denies this.  There must be limits even on the power of the majority.  In fact, Mill had a powerful expression for this—i.e. “the tyranny of the majority.” Mill said, “ ‘the tyranny of the majority’ is now generally included among the evils against which society requires to be on its guard.” So, just because the majority of the people think they should impose the obligation on an individual to get vaccinated does not of itself make that decision just.

Mill waxed eloquent on this subject:

“Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling…There is limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism.”

 

Really what Mill is arguing in favour of is what we now call a liberal or constitutional democracy. That means a democracy that is subject to the human rights of the individuals. A democratic society cannot do anything it wants to do. There must be reasonable limits on that power and Mill helps us to understand what those limits are.

John Stuart Mill on Liberty

Epidemics/Pandemics, Freedom, Human rights, Liberalism

 

I think we can gain a better understanding of the issue of mandates by looking at what English philosopher John Stuart Mill said in the 19th century. In my opinion he has helped to shed light on many important social issues by his careful analysis of liberty.

John Stuart Mill set out well the rationale for allowing individuals to be free (autonomous) to decide for themselves what medical treatments to take or not take.

He asked a preliminary question to set out the issue clearly.  He asked,

“What, then, is the rightful limit to the sovereignty of the individual over himself? Where does the authority of society begin?  How much of human life should be assigned to individuality, and now much to society?”

 

That is precisely the question raised by the mandate issue. Should the individual be allowed to decide for himself or herself whether or not to take the vaccines or can society legitimately make the decision instead? Note that unlike many modern people who deny that the state has the right to impose virtually any restrictions on them, let alone vaccines, Mill recognized that there were restrictions on freedom and he wanted to understand what those limits were.

Mill said, in trying to answer this question, the following:

“Each will receive its proper share, if each has that which more particularly concerns it. To individuality should belong that part of life in which it is chiefly the individual that is interested; to society, the part which chiefly interests society.”

 

If society is of greater interest in the answer to the question then the individual, then it ought to be allowed to make the decision. If the individual is more interested in the question  then he or she should be permitted to decide.

Mill did not say society had no right to get involved in the personal affairs of individuals. For example, Mill said “Human beings owe to each other help to distinguish the better from the worse, and encouragement to choose the former and avoid the latter.” As a pertinent example, in society there is no objection to trying to persuade individuals to take a vaccine if society has evidence that this course of action would be good for the individual and society. Society has the right to do that.  But does it have the right to go further and impose an obligation to take one of the vaccines?  According to Mill,

“But neither one person nor any number of persons, is warranted in saying to another human creature of ripe years, that he shall not do with his life for his own benefit what he chooses to do with it. He is the person most interested in his own well-being; the interest which any other person, except cases of strong personal attachment , can have in it, is trifling, compared with that which he himself has; the interest which society has in him individually (except as to his conduct to others) is fractional, and all together indirect; while with respect to his own feelings and circumstances , the most ordinary man or woman has means of knowledge immeasurably surpassing those that can be possessed by any one else. (emphasis added)”

 

Please note the vitally important qualification which I have highlighted.  Therefore, Mill concludes, with regard to what concerns only himself, society has no right to override the individual’s decisions. Mill said,

“in this department, therefore, of human affairs, Individuality has its proper  field of action…Considerations to aid his judgment, exhortations to strengthen his will, may be offered to him, even obtruded on him, by others: but he himself is the final judge.  All errors which he is likely to commit against advice and warning are outweighed by the evil of allowing others to constrain him to what they deem his good.”

 

On this basis, individuals would be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to take a Covid-19 vaccine, provided his actions do not affect others.  That then becomes the central question: do they affect others and to what extent?

Back in 1859 when Mill wrote On Liberty, he realized that It would be “a vital question of the future,” what the nature and limits of the power  which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual.” On that point he was indubitably right as the current debate over the propriety of a vaccine mandate makes clear.