Any topic (writer's choice)
Instructions
Mill seems clear on what ought to be our limits in using coercion against individual freedom of thought. And, really, this would be difficult to completely police anyway. He is also clear that we have far fewer limits on the use of coercion against individual action (because of harm), though the specifics are difficult. Free argumentation - freedom of speech, you might say - is a little less clear. Mill seems to want to suggest that nearly all speech should be free from coercion because of the value of robust argumentation for human progress. Offensive and unpopular views may even warrant special protection because (as with Socrates, gadfly of Athens) they help us refine and properly affirm our better views. But we've come a long way since Mill, and we've recognized that some speech can be harmful. Words "do" things. And certain words, in specific circumstances, may cause real harm. It's possible Mill might have disagreed with the very idea that most any speech (as argument) could constitute harm. Then again, Mill might have just had an insufficiently developed understanding of psychology to appreciate a full enough definition of harm (which perhaps aided him in his own views on non-European peoples and the benefits of colonization, which may be considered objectionable today). Where would you set the limits to free speech (if any)? Why? Should these limits be universally valid? Does the concept of harm matter in setting these limits? I recommend extra caution here - there are plenty of respectful ways to make a point about this topic, but also plenty of unproductive and disrespectful ways. Please work hard to choose the former rather than the latter.
Answer
Manage orders
Why we are Ranked the best
- Unlimited Revisions
- Free 24/7 Support and chat
- Money back guaranteed
- Low prices with discounts
- Experienced writers.
- Free Unlimited support