In Defense of Liberty
“I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all”
Introduction:
Use of Military Force
For what reasons may military force be
deployed? For what reasons can the
resort to force be justified?
Self Defense (national sovereignty)
Defense of Liberty
Enforcement of Justice
Protection of Human Rights
The Value of Liberty
Request for “reasons” is an appeal to moral
theory (which we have reviewed)
Rights & Justice will be covered in coming
weeks
“Defense of Liberty” is a common justification
for appeal to force
But what makes “liberty” so important that
force can be justified in its defense?
Descriptive Answer
FP 130: liberty is one of the chief virtues of
democratic systems
U. S. Constitution defines political institutions
and procedures that ensure the liberties of
citizens
U.S. Military, under civilian control, is one of
these institutions (“Constitutional paradigm”)
Bill of Rights defines specific spheres of
individual liberty that cannot be abrogated by
government (e.g., First Amendment)
Normative Answer: Utilitarianism
Individual liberty is a component of
happiness. “Individuals care not only about
what happens to them, but also about their
ability to determine or influence what
happens to them” (Prof. Doug MacLean)
People are better at recognizing and
promoting their own happiness than that of
others
Individuals should thus be granted the moral
right to a sphere of private interest to pursue
their own happiness (Jefferson)
Normative Answer: Kant
Freedom (“autonomy”) is the basis of
morality
“Ought” implies “can”: if my reason imposes
obligations and limitations on my behavior, it
should be feasible for me to choose
voluntarily to live within those constraints
“Fact of Freedom” is the basis for human
dignity – for treating persons as ends, not
merely as means to an end (CI2)
Normative Answer: Aristotelian
Virtue Theory
Focus on individual freedom is a modern, not
an ancient, preoccupation
Reason is the foundation of freedom (Kant),
whereas for Aristotle, Reason is the means
for discerning the Good
Judgment (phronesis), wisdom, self-control –
a sphere of liberty permits the cultivation of
these virtues
Happiness (eudaimonia) and human
flourishing are unattainable for the slave
J. S. Mill’s On Liberty
Classic attempt to address these questions
thoroughly
Unusual to have a utilitarian defending an
individual moral right (“nonsense”)
Utility is the ultimate appeal (and this would
normally favor the group over the individual)
Mill, however, appeals to “utility in the largest
sense, grounded on the permanent interests
of man as a progressive being”
Public versus Private Behavior
“Public” acts are those actions which
affect the well being of others,
especially actions that might harm
others
“Private” acts are those actions which
affect the well being only of myself and
no others
The Liberty Principle
Also known as the “harm” principle
“the sole end for which mankind are warranted,
individually or collectively, in interfering with the
liberty of action of any of their number is selfprotection…the only purpose for which power can be
rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized
community against his will, is to prevent harm to
others.”
Public Infringement of Liberty
[Compare Kant’s negative (“perfect”) duties not to do
harm – differences?]
“Acts of whatever kind, which without justifiable
cause do harm to others may be, and in the more
important cases absolutely require to be, controlled
by the unfavorable sentiments, and when needful, by
the active interference of mankind”
“The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited:
he must not make himself a nuisance to other
people”
Private Realm of Liberty
“Over himself, over his own body and mind,
the individual is sovereign”
“His own good, either physical or moral, is
not a sufficient warrant [for restraining his
liberty]”
We must be allowed to pursue our own
interests “without impediment from our fellow
creatures, so long as what we do does not
harm them, even though they should think
our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong.”
Why? Reasons?
“the strongest of all the arguments against
the interference of the public with purely
personal conduct is that, when it does
interfere, the odds are that it interferes
wrongly, and in the wrong place”
“in general, government should avoid
interfering with the private lives of citizens,
since they invariably do a poor job of
regulation, and cause more harm than good,
even when well intentioned”
Implications
Thought and, to a large extent, speech
(including publication) ought NOT to be
regulated
Individual social practices like drinking,
gambling, use of drugs, etc., are not “right or
wrong, in and of themselves;” they should
not be regulated except as they affect the
public welfare
E.g., “no person ought to be punished simply
for being drunk, but a soldier or policeman
should be punished for being drunk on duty”
Special Status of Thought &
Speech (Public Fallibility)
If the majority opinion is wrong, how else shall we
discover error?
If the majority opinion is true, how else shall we
know its justification?
Received opinion must be “vigorously and earnestly
contested,” else it be held “in the manner of a
prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its
rational grounds”
Usually the received view contains only partial truth;
the full truth is revealed only “by the collision of
adverse opinions”
Conclusion: “Positive” Duties of
Citizenship
“There are also many positive acts for the benefit of others
which [a person] may rightfully be compelled to perform, such
as to give evidence in a court of justice, to bear his fair share in
the common defense, or in any other joint work necessary to
the interest of the society of which he enjoys the protection
Also can be required “to perform certain acts of individual
beneficence, such as saving a fellow creature’s life, or
interposing to protect the defenseless”
“Everyone who received the protection of society owes a return
for the benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it
indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain
line of conduct toward the rest”