Freedom according to philosopher John Stuart Mill
John Stuart Mill describes freedom as one of the most important aspects in the life of the human being, so that he manages to live in society, but paradoxically to live with others, certain limitations of these freedoms are needed. There is no single type of freedom, but always "freedom" goes with a surname for example moral, ethical, religious, constitutional freedom, etc. Generally the freedoms that are most spoken today are two, the freedom of the public sphere, which are the freedoms that the laws give us, whether the Civil Code, Constitution, which restrict us or guide us to have a good coexistence between Citizens, the other is freedom of expression which is more linked to the private sphere in which we have "total" freedom to express and understand our personal ideas, but this does not mean that we should keep silent with our opinions, it is always good Express them in the right way even Mill gives reasons to defend an extensive freedom of expression which can be reflected in the following quotes:
“Refusing to hear an opinion, because it is sure that it is false, it is equivalent to affirming that the truth that is possessed is the absolute truth.”(Mill, 2018, P.82) Mill ensures that refusing to a discussion implies an infallibility assumption.
“If the opinion is true, they are deprived of the opportunity to change the error for the truth and if erroneous; loses a no less important benefit: the clearest perception and the most living impression of truth, produced by its error collision.”(Mill, 2018, P.82) John Stuart Mill puts two cases, first that the opinion is true, if this happens, the opportunity to change this error for this truth is lost, leaving the error for much longer. The second case is whether the opinion is wrong, with this if the opinion is denied the analysis capacity that the human being can develop and the opportunity to develop a more “complete” truth is lost, since generally the silenced opinion usually usually Having a certain degree of truth and how the opinion is rarely complete, it is thanks to real collisions that can be complete.
For a couple of years, what many are called "the fourth industrial revolution" which consists of all this manufacturing automation, this can be seen day by day in supermarkets in which there are less and less personal, In banks, stores and even highways, the more time passes, the less people are in charge of certain tasks, but the fourth revolution not only brought an automation in some manufactures, but also change the form of communication between people, they are no longer sent Letters, or are made phone calls on public phones, but all this was changed to email, messages by WhatsApp, called/video calls through the cell phone causing a new phenomenon in which humans are increasingly losing empathy towards empathy Other people because these are no longer communicated in front, but rather do it between screens, thus losing "face to face" and gaining some anonymity in the Internet. As a consequence of this loss of empathy, much more aggressiveness is being seen in opinions, hate speeches, harassment and the refuge in the phrase of "I am free to express what I want" and if someone tells them that what they think is wrong It is violating their free expression, thus generating confusion, because not letting them "express" freely are denying such an essential freedom for Mill, so there is a way to compatible freedom of thought, expression and discussion with the promotion with the promotion of a democratic and tolerant society? Totally since this is achieved by educating people, we must teach them that freedom of expression also has a limit.
We all have freedom of expression, it is a natural man of man and one of his stronger freedoms, but this does not mean that this freedom has no limits, because if he had no limits, we could not live in society, we would be constantly going on to take the others People, it is for this reason that this freedom has limits, but in the event that this person is making a hate speech, should it react in the same way? No, all forms of violence are not justified by malevolio or frivolous that your speech can not be used physical or psychological violence, but this means that the behaviors of certain people should be accepted, we can express our disgust towards this person and get away from her, but for no reason you can disturb your life. This has a reason according to million that is expressed in the following appointment “We must reflect that it already supports, or will endure, the whole penalty of her mistake, that she ruins her life for a wrong behavior is a reason for us to want to extreme even more ruin ”(Mill, 2018, P.156)
With the previous appointment, Mill expresses that this person who exercised his hate speech will already have to assume/support the consequences of this at some point and that we as people should no longer extreme their condemnation and/or punishment.
If a person usually expresses hatred, resentment, racism or any form of violence, this person should be treated with mercy and not with resentment or hate, this is because in this way he can be educated much easier about freedom of expression, It can be seen that your behavior is not correct and that there are better ways to express yourself. John Stuart Mill describes how to show him the damage that his behavior can bring “instead of wishing for his punishment, we must rather try to relieve it, showing him how he can avoid or cure the evils that his behavior entails. This person can be for us object of mercy, perhaps of aversion, but not of irritation or resentment.”(Mill, 2018, P.156)
However, the "opinion" that is intended to be suppressed can be true, because refusing to hear an opinion usually generates a false belief of absolute truth, being against what Mill describes, since no truth is absolute by perfect that it seems, Apart if this opinion is denied the possibility of creating a much more correct truth thanks to the collision between truths. Mill writes about this opinion that can become true "the opinion that is attempted by authority can be true. Those who want to suppress it deny, naturally, their truth, but they are not infallible.”(Mill, 2018, P.82)
However, that opinion goes to lead other people does not justify freedom of opinion, since another person’s freedom is simply overlooking, perhaps not of mind, but his freedom to live in society without being without being excluded or marginalized by other people, so that this does not happen it is necessary that we accompany the person who is assaulting another human being because the worst thing can be done is to abandon it, since their behavior can corrupt others generating many more speeches from I hate and cause damage to their closest or distant relationships. Mill expresses this idea in the following appointment “No person is an entirely isolated being; It is impossible for a person to do anything serious or permanently harmful to himself without the damage reaching at least his closest relationships, and frequently to the farthest.”(Mill, 2018, P.157)
In conclusion, the human being has a primary right that is freedom, which always goes with a surname, since there is not only one type of freedom, but there is a freedom that much was spoken in this essay, which is the Freedom of expression, although it sounds something paradoxical, this freedom as well as the others have their limits, because if it were not so, coexistence in society would be very difficult, it is for this reason the hate discourse does not enter into freedom of expression because when generating these speeches, the freedom of others is carried out. To stop these speeches, it is necessary not to act as the people who carry it out, but rather guide them and make them understand that their opinion of hate is not well, that it is not justified with freedom of expression and that if you continue with These speeches sooner or later will have an impact on your life.
Leave feedback