Timeline for How did Mill resolve tensions in Utilitarianism and Liberalism concerning the public/private distinction?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 31, 2012 at 13:04 | vote | accept | Carl | ||
| May 31, 2012 at 13:04 | comment | added | Carl | The quotes you added are much clearer. Each of the three arguments for free speech rights is straightforwardly consequentialist. So, on Mill's account, a private/public distinct is likely to have good effects for our happiness overall. As ever in consequentialism, there's the question of whether it might be worth it to defect from principles in individual instances, but that's a systemic problem, not particular to the right to private beliefs. Thanks. | |
| May 30, 2012 at 1:54 | comment | added | Xodarap | @Carl: Updated answer | |
| May 30, 2012 at 1:54 | history | edited | Xodarap | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1133 characters in body
|
| May 29, 2012 at 8:17 | comment | added | Carl | I read that quote as saying that there is a public/private distinction, but does he ever defend this distinction on utilitarian grounds? Can we be sure that only holding people liable for conduct that affects others will tend to maximize society's happiness? The way it's phrased here, it seems more deontological than utilitarian. | |
| May 28, 2012 at 22:54 | history | answered | Xodarap | CC BY-SA 3.0 |