There are 3 possible scenarios where interference with personal freedom can prevent harm: One of the rational principles that Mill suggests we adopt in order to truly assure personal freedom is that we meddle in and limit other people’s freedom only when the reason is that we want to save them or others from harm. Lesson 2: It’s only okay to limit people’s freedom when you’re trying to save them from harm. So no, democracy alone won’t solve all of our problems. It’s easy to imagine that all people from other religions were often criticized, excluded and sometimes even prosecuted, just for holding a different belief than the majority. This happens when the majority imposes their own opinions, views and beliefs on individuals who don’t agree.įor example, while today a lot of religions are common and accepted in the US, as recently as 1950, 91% of all Americans were Christians. Personal freedom can still be threatened in a democracy by something that he calls social tyranny. Yes, the elected officials are what the majority wants, but that’s not the same as allowing each individual to govern him- or herself.
Today we widely accept democracy as a useful tool to limit the power of political authorities by letting the people elect their political representatives.īut Mill says democracy alone still isn’t enough to ensure personal liberty.īecause in this model, the majority rules over the individual. If you want to save this summary for later, download the free PDF and read it whenever you want.ĭownload PDF Lesson 1: Democracy alone does not guarantee personal freedom.Īncient Greece, England, pre-World War II Germany, Libya, Egypt, Cambodia – we all know plenty of cases of dictatorships and need not discuss the terrible consequences a single-leader tyranny can bring about.
0 kommentar(er)
