What is the Harm Principle? (Free Speech)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 лют 2025
- This video explains John Stuart Mill's "Harm Principle" as described in his work "On Liberty," his example of the corn dealer, and four arguments for the harm principle.
Sponsors: João Costa Neto, Dakota Jones, Thorin Isaiah Malmgren, Prince Otchere, Mike Samuel, Daniel Helland, Mohammad Azmi Banibaker, Dennis Sexton, kdkdk, Yu Saburi, Mauricino Andrade, Diéssica, Will Roberts, Greg Gauthier, Christian Bay, Joao Sa, Richard Seaton, Edward Jacobson, isenshi, and √2. Thanks for your support!
Donate on Patreon: / carneades
Buy stuff with Zazzle: www.zazzle.com/...
Follow us on Twitter: @CarneadesCyrene / carneadescyrene
Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and more! (#FreeSpeech #JohnStuartMill)
![Rick Roderick on John Stuart Mill on Liberty [full length]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RXZhMbr4qmQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Perfect! So far the clearest demonstration of Mill's ideas!
Thanks so much!
thank you for this video! our world needed this vehemently.
This is amazing. You just earned yourself another subscriber.
I'm totally intrested in further uploads in this topic
Thanks. Made me think. It's been over 40 years since I read On Liberty. I used to say I was a first amendment absolutist. Things got more complicated over time.
Glad you enjoy. It is complicated. If anyone makes strong case in defense of speech, Mill does. That said, even Mill thinks inciting a mob is indefensible.
You SHOULD do a demonetization vs censorship video!
Keep the good work. Arguments on free speech must be disseminated. It is the basis of all discussion in society.
this is great and insightful information, thank you!
Glad to help. Thanks for watching!
Great content and I just subscribed. I like that you clarify on the type of harm being discussed which is "physical, direct illegitimate action" resulting from incitement. I would just like to ask for your sources. I am doing a paper and I like what you said but it's difficult finding your explanation anywhere else. I have not found anyone else even attempting to explain this as you did, yet, anyway. I'm only wondering what your source us for this dissemination. Thank you.!!
Thank you for this! I am currently writing a political theory paper and was getting a bit lost!
Glad to help out! :) Thanks for watching.
Interesting stuff, but I did notice that when you brought up the "he's not really talking about offended people" bit (which I might misremember, I'm going off what I recall) I realized that using speech to, say, insult or slur at a person in many cases can count as direct harm to that person, as insulting someone can directly cause them to feel worse off. This is especially true when it comes to bullying vulnerable people, e.g. those with fragile egos or those who are going through rough times.
is those are really mill's views, they seem to be really inconsistent
Excellent video thank you
The limitations with these four arguments, or so it seems to me, is that they only apply to the factual content of an utterance. This leaves the door open to restrictions to how one expresses oneself, for example having the government punishing people for uttering slurs. Even worse it might leave a logical positivist, for example, with license to be extremely restrictive in terms of allowed speech.
Yes they will listen and then they will silence you for good!
I would love to hear your take on UA-cam demonetization and other forms of private censorship. It is my belief that some corporations acquire so much economic power that they act as quasi-governments. This is qualitatively different from my right to censor what a guest says in my own home, or his right to censor my speech when I am a guest in his home.
See, I really like these arguments, but it seems so idealistic. People aren't purely rational entities--most of our opinions come from social/peer pressure, or emotional attachment. A world of pure free speech leads to the rise of beliefs like creationism and flat earth. As we've seen, these ideas are impossible to stifle with good rhetoric and education. How can we resolve the issue of a false level playing field for extremist positions? Also, what about opinions which are directly oppressive but not directly illegal? Laws are slow to change and often disfavor minority populations.
neither religious nor ridiculous scientific claims have been used to base gov't policy
so that means we the people are smart enough to debunk false claims
an opinion can not be oppressive
only a human being can
@@TheBelovedRose. what religious rhetoric has been used?
@@TheBelovedRose. there's nothing wrong with a religious belief leading to policy as long as the proponent of that belief has hard science to support those beliefs
Please shit on UA-cam spread that knowledge
words do cause harm even if not immediate. secondly by what standard to we asses wether or not an idea causes harm? There is no assesment in that regard. But as we can see in society people advocate for things that directly cause harm to society, but are allowed to do so under a false ideology of free speech. For example advocating for illegal immigration which could literally collapse society. Free speech must be censored and managed heavily.
our legal system was created to enable congress to punish people for causing harm to other people
not to neighborhoods or society as a whole
so until you harm an individual the gov't can't punish you
harm is basically when someone has violated one of the three basic rights of life , liberty and property or equal treatment
@@robinsss i donot agree with basic rights of life liberty and property. They allow people too much freedom and the ability to harm society.
@@MrHigherplane do you feel that someone should be able to physically harm someone else or steal their car or jewelry without punishment?
@@robinsss no
@@MrHigherplane then why did you say you don't agree with life liberty and property?
So a racist can preach racism?
It depends. You can't stand outside the house of a black man and tell an angry mob about how all black people should die. However, according to Mill, you can say things like people of a given race are inferior, immoral, etc. Mill argued that if we expose such false statements to the light of rational discussion, they can be shown to be false. Yet if we censor them and force people who hold such views to go underground, we will never convince them they are wrong, instead they will continue to hold their views. According to Mill, we have to let them speak their minds to convince them otherwise, even if we know they are wrong.
Feeling some Benny Shapiro vibes and I do not like it
Note that I am a skeptic, I am not condoning Mill's position here, just bringing it into conversation with modern positions. Mill was progressive on many issues for his time such as being the first member of parliament to call for women's suffrage. But one of the questions I want to look at here is whether his positions on free speech hold up to modern scrutiny.
'Facts don't care about your feelings' - says the guy who's a devout Orthodox Jew who fails to understand female biology!