Part 1A Paper 4:
Set texts/ Mill
Lecture 2: Free Speech
Chris Thompson
cjt68@cam.ac.uk
1
Reminder of last week’s lecture
1.  The Harm Principle:
“That the only purpose for which power
can be rightfully exercised over any
member of a civilised community, against
his will, is to prevent harm to
others. [Ch.1]
2
Reminder of last week’s lecture
2. Harm
Act
Body
-Act
Actual
Risk
Interests
1
3
2
5
4
7
6
8
3
Reminder of last week’s lecture
3. Problem – are there any purely selfregarding actions?
4
Reminder of last week’s lecture
4. Problem – is harm necessary and
sufficient for intervention?
S
N
5
Reminder of last week’s lecture
Sufficient = “Is harm enough to justify
interference?”
Harm
Interference
6
Reminder of last week’s lecture
Sufficient = “Is harm enough to justify
interference?”
Harm
Interference
No:
7
Reminder of last week’s lecture
Sufficient = “Is harm enough to justify
interference?”
Harm
No:
Interference
T
8
Reminder of last week’s lecture
Sufficient = “Is harm enough to justify
interference?”
Harm
No:
T
Interference
F
9
Reminder of last week’s lecture
Sufficient = “Is harm enough to justify
interference?”
Harm
No:
T
E.g.: Your place
at Cam.
Interference
F
10
Reminder of last week’s lecture
Sufficient = “Is harm enough to justify
interference?”
Harm
No:
T
E.g.: Your place
at Cam.
Interference
F
No need to
interfere
11
Reminder of last week’s lecture
Necessary = “Must there be harm to justify
interference?”
Interference
Harm
12
Reminder of last week’s lecture
Necessary = “Must there be harm to justify
interference?”
Interference
Harm
No(?):
13
Reminder of last week’s lecture
Necessary = “Must there be harm to justify
interference?”
Interference
No(?):
Harm
T
14
Reminder of last week’s lecture
Necessary = “Must there be harm to justify
interference?”
Interference
No(?):
T
Harm
F
15
Reminder of last week’s lecture
Necessary = “Must there be harm to justify
interference?”
Interference
No(?):
T
E.g.: Giving
evidence
in court
Harm
F
16
Reminder of last week’s lecture
Necessary = “Must there be harm to justify
interference?”
Interference
No(?):
T
E.g.: Giving
evidence
in court
Harm
F
No harm
by refusing
to give
evidence
17
Overview
On Liberty
•  Lecture 1: The Harm Principle
•  Lecture 2: Free Speech
•  Lecture 3: Objections to FS – Offence
•  Lecture 4: Objections to HP - Paternalism
The Subjection of Women
•  Lecture 5: Sex and Gender; Nature/ Nurture
•  Lecture 6: Marriage and Equality
•  Lecture 7: Individuality and progress
Summary and common themes
•  Lecture 8: Utilitarianism
18
Readings
•  MILL, J.S., On Liberty, ch. 2.
•  DEVLIN, P., The Enforcement of Morals (Oxford:
Oxford University Pres, 1965).
•  DWORKIN, R., 'Liberty and Moralism', in his
Taking Rights Seriously (London: Duckworth,
1977), pp. 240-58. HART, H., Law, Liberty, and
Morality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963),
ch. 1.
•  Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy entries.
19
Questions
•  What are Mill s main arguments in favour of free
speech?
•  What are the main weaknesses in his
arguments?
20
Quote
“If the arguments of the present chapter are
of any validity, there ought to exist the fullest
liberty of professing and discussing, as a
matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine,
however immoral it may be
considered.” (Ch.2)
21
Overview
1.  The argument from perverse incentives
2.  The two arguments from truth (or partial
truth)
3.  The two arguments from justification
(and understanding)
4.  Limits on free speech – the Harm
principle
5.  Weaknesses
22
Overview
1.  The argument from perverse incentives
2.  The two arguments from truth (or partial
truth)
3.  The two arguments from justification
(and understanding)
4.  Limits on free speech – the Harm
principle
5.  Weaknesses
23
1. The argument from perverse
incentives
•  Only touched on briefly
“No argument, we may suppose, can now
be needed, against permitting a legislature
or an executive, not identified in interest with
the people, to prescribe opinions to them,
and determine what doctrines or what
arguments they shall be allowed to
hear.” (Ch.2)
24
Overview
1.  The argument from perverse incentives
2.  The two arguments from truth (or partial
truth)
3.  The two arguments from justification
(and understanding)
4.  Limits on free speech – the Harm
principle
5.  Weaknesses
25
2.The two arguments from truth
(or partial truth)
Knowledge
•  Justified
•  True
•  Belief
26
2.The two arguments from truth
(or partial truth)
•  A justified, true belief is necessary
(‘essential’) for knowledge
Knowledge
(Belief & true & justified)
27
2.The two arguments from truth
(or partial truth)
•  A justified, true belief is sufficient
(‘enough’) for knowledge
(Belief & true & justified)
Knowledge
•  Gettier problems
28
2.The two arguments from truth
(or partial truth)
Knowledge
•  Justified
•  True
•  Belief
29
2.The two arguments from truth
(or partial truth)
“The opinion which it is attempted to
suppress by authority may possibly be
true” (ch.2)
•  E.g. Galileo and the heliocentric view of
the universe
30
2.The two arguments from truth
(or partial truth)
“…the conflicting doctrines, instead of being
one true and the other false, share the truth
between them; and the nonconforming
opinion is needed to supply the remainder
of the truth, of which the received doctrine
embodies only part” (Ch.2)
E.g. academic progress
31
Overview
1.  The argument from perverse incentives
2.  The two arguments from truth (or partial
truth)
3.  The two arguments from justification
(and understanding)
4.  Limits on free speech – the Harm
principle
5.  Weaknesses
32
3.The two arguments
justification (and understanding)
Knowledge
•  Justified
•  True
•  Belief
33
3.The two arguments
justification (and understanding)
“ Complete liberty of contradicting and
disproving our opinion, is the very condition
which justifies us in assuming its truth for
purposes of action; and on no other terms
can a being with human faculties have any
rational assurance of being right.” (ch.2)
34
3.The two arguments
justification (and understanding)
•  Two interpretations:
1.  Division of cognitive labour
2.  Popperian
1. People are not cognitively self sufficient,
and so need to share beliefs.
2. If a belief survives repeated attempts to
challenge it, we can have some
confidence in it.
35
3.The two arguments
justification (and understanding)
“[If there is censorship] the meaning of the
doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost,
or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect
on the character and conduct… “ (Ch.2)
E.g. religion and giving to charity
• We have the faculty as free human beings
to reason, to engage in reflective decision
making
36
Overview
1.  The argument from perverse incentives
2.  The two arguments from truth (or partial
truth)
3.  The two arguments from justification
(and understanding)
4.  Limits on free speech – the Harm
principle
5.  Weaknesses
37
4. Limits on free speech – the
Harm Principle
“An opinion that corn-dealers are starvers of
the poor, or that private property is robbery,
ought to be unmolested when simply
circulated through the press, but may justly
incur punishment when delivered orally to an
excited mob assembled before the house of
a corn-dealer…” (Ch.3)
38
Overview
1.  The argument from perverse incentives
2.  The two arguments from truth (or partial
truth)
3.  The two arguments from justification
(and understanding)
4.  Limits on free speech – the Harm
principle
5.  Weaknesses
39
5. Weaknesses
1)  Will the truth always out?
2)  Is deliberation the only route to
justification?
3)  Instrumental justifications
4)  Intrinsic justifications
40
Next week…
•  Lecture 3: Objections to the Harm
Principle – Paternalism
41