Mill on Liberty

John Stuart footles On Liberty is an intellectual discussion on bonny how far societys reach prat influence and moderate the natural processs of roughly unmatcheds. mill around required several criteria to evaluate the discussion of fagot advert, its impact, and whether it is a wellness reveal. His work can be summarized into the following points1. An somebody has the honor equal to act as he wants as long as their actions do non harm some others.2. Society has no function to interject if the exclusive is and directing his actions upon himself.3. Children and those less civilized would be exempt. (In other linguistic communication these two groups are deemed to require guidance).4. Every 1 is entitled to free speech no matter if that speech is erroneous.5. Debate is incumbent to find equity.6. We must protect the strength to drive. mill around would give way no issue with goat advertising. Under his philosophy the manufacturers of stubs and those advertisin g for tushs would be entitled to do so. What Mills would urge is that although these companies leave the sound to free speech they would bring to tell what the wellness costs of tail consumption as documented by every major wellness sequencency. Mills would propose that fairys be taxed and the various(prenominal) be warned of associated health issues from tail consumption.If the one-on-one is mighty educated about the risks and unchanging decides to purchase and pick out cigarettes, according to Mills the several(prenominal) will have assumed alone the risk beca affair the several(prenominal) hasbeen educated about the risks of cigarette consumption and has still decided to pursue that action in spite of that knowledge.Mills decision would non solely be establish upon whether the issue is health related or an issue of free speech regarding cigarette manufacturers exponent to have their product advertised. Mills would take into account all aspects and raise a judg ment. His utilitarian philosophy is never separate from every of his decisions and is expressed, one must always act so as to produce the greatest pleasure for the greatest number of people (Mill 59-74).Following this logic cigarette advertising would be accepted the cigarette advertising would have constraints much(prenominal) as proper disclosure of the health risks associated with cigarette consumption in other words no deceptions. If, in spite of this pronounceation regarding cigarettes, the singular still makes a decision to use cigarettes, Mills would conclude that it is within the individuals power to control their actions, so if anything detrimental happened to them, they were fully aware of the consequences.What Mills would reason is that it would be wrong to influence children and others non qualified to properly take care of themselves. Constraints much(prenominal) as cigarette tax, proof of age would be acceptable as constraints because they do non infringe u pon an individuals right to choose. The production of proof would be viewed as an indication that the individual understands the risks and unforced to assume the risks associated with cigarette consumption.The cigarette producer requests that cigarettes be advertised. The advertisement would aline and give the risks inherent with cigarette consumption. In recognition of the risks, certain constraints such as requirement of understanding the health risks and proof that one is of sanctioned age to understand these risks, Mills would have no issue.Mills would have issue if the individual wasnt told of the health risks in the cigarette advertising. Mills would have issue if the cigarette manufacturers and cigarette advertisers forced individuals to consume cigarettes. Mills would have pull ahead issue if the individual was told he couldntchoose or would have a prize either way to choose to use cigarettes or to choose not to use cigarettes based upon advertising.Mills would advocat e that if cigarette manufacturers, advertisers did not provide the heart (in variantation, education, relevant disclosure) they should be punish. Applicable laws, fines and chains would be considered.These judgments would be considered because the manufacturer and advertiser would knowingly be inflicting distressingness upon the individual by not disclosing the health risks associated from consuming cigarettes and the advertising of the product.Simply, the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to counter harm to others (68). Because harm would pass to the individual without proper reading, the prevailing judgment would be to enforce a law so as to cause other manufacturers of cigarettes and their advertisers to rightfully inform the individual. Also, each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual (71-72).The process of discussing the effects and how cigare ttes affected the individual would be stringently encouraged by Mills. We can never be sure that the perspective we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still (76-77). Further, Mills would argue that the opinion regarding cigarettes couldnt be suppressed anyway because others opinions around the world would exist.Cigarette advertising would be viewed alternatively positively. The advertising would pose a forum to discuss the benefits and risks whether physical, mental or spiritual. The reason would be many areas of argument would be heard, and out of this an force to judge for ones own self would be come about evident. As promote proof and evidence would become clear, the benefits and risks would withal become clear. The individual therefore would be able to decide ultimately for himself.As it is known the health effects of cigarette consumption, Mills would inflict a tax based upon utility. That is, cigarette consu mption is used by some. Since some derive some benefit from cigarettesthey should be allowed to do so. Indeed, Mills would view the move to prevent an individual from whether to choose to consume cigarettes, even with the health risks explained as an attempt to prevent the energy to choose. Mills would take into account these health risks and hind end a tax on the product. This tax in turn could barely the education about cigarette consumption and quite possibly be put to further the research into cigarettes.The health issue of cigarettes would provide a great forum for debate because through debate the raw force of equity would surface. The raw true statement, not societys truth, your neighbors truth or another form of spoon-fed truth, but the raw truth would reveal itself. It is this raw proof through debate that Mills would have humanity embrace. It is through the, Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion, is the very condition which justifies us in as suming its truth for purposes of action and on no other room can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right (79).Mills would state further that the validity of health issues associated with cigarette consumption would stand the test of time. That is disregarding of who said what, evidence to support the health risks associated with cigarette consumption would be consistent regardless of who wants to test the validity. The testers would find the same evidence and would come to the same conclusions. There would be no reason to inflict ones will to assume the truth. The government would not need to intervene because the individual would be aware and educated to what the benefits or risks of cigarettes and cigarette advertising.Mills would also justify that if cigarettes were advertised and sold to minors or those who are not yet old enough to form an opinion that the sellers of cigarettes would be punished under the law. The reason is that he would view t his as a form of slavery slavery or manacles of ones competency to be properly educated and the talent to freely choose. Mills would argue those minors or those not yet old enough or have sufficient maturity are not quite unresolved of making a strong mental decision.Therefore, the cigarette manufacturers and their advertisers would be in violation of not disclosing what they know, that is the associated health risks of cigarettes.Mills would also view those who consumed cigarettes in the presence of others who didnt consume cigarettes equally unjustifiable. Mills would state that the happiness of the individual who did not consume cigarettes as being infringed upon and his ability to choose whether to be around another individual and knowing or not knowing the consequences of such action would not nullify the existence of those actions and gum olibanum infringe upon that individuals ability to remove himself from possible health risks.Mills would further argue because another individual inflicted harm upon another then certain fines or other punishment would be enforced. This would also involve cigarette manufacturers and their advertisers. Mills would include fine, imprisonment or other penalties if those parties did not transgress information that they had available that was relevant and affected the individual.Mills methodical approach would be utilize to every situation. He would ask the same questions regarding any problem. As apply to cigarette advertising Mills would ask, Who does this affect? If this affects individuals negatively, he would pronounce, This is bad for the acceptable of individuals so the cigarette advertisers should be fined or imprisoned because they are harming others (119).If cigarette advertisers were to publicly announce that cigarettes are horrible and pose numerous health risks and the individual still chose to consume cigarettes, then that is the individuals choice and society should not intervene The reason is simpl e the individual armed with the knowledge that cigarette consumption poses health risks and is dangerous and still continues to pursue this task, then that individual has been warned. Since that individual has been warned they take and assume all responsibility for their actions.Mills logic would not stop there. Mills would require that the individual who consumes cigarettes, as a vector sum of cigarette advertising, be truly and wholeheartedly aware of what consequences this course of action may bring. Further, if those individuals were not mature or mentally aware, finesor imprisonment against cigarette advertisers and their manufacturers would be at the core of justifiable punishment.Mills was concerned with the ability of the individual to choose. If the individual was not able to choose regardless of whether that choice was considered wrong then that individuals liberty would be interpreted away. As such, society would impress upon the individual its choice and deny that indiv idual any means of exploring that option for themselves.At heart of this ability to choose is prerequisite debate. Debate and intellectual discussion at its core would disclose assumptions and abbreviate at raw truth. The truth has to be, fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed (96-97). Or else it would not be, a living truth (97).No one from society to other individuals including the individuals themselves should impose any thought or action that would deprive them of their freedom. Freedom in the sense that the individual can pursue their own good in their own way (71-72), and not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or retard their efforts to obtain it (71-72).Mills would view cigarette advertising from all positions. It would not be sufficient to just argue on point and then conclude that to be the truth. Mills would argue that if cigarette advertisers and their manufacturers did not disclose any relevant risks associated with the consumption of cigarettes then they shoul d face penalties because those agencies would be denying individuals necessary information that affects their well-being.Mills also would view any issue of health as a matter of disclosure. Inevitably some individuals would say they benefit from cigarette consumption. Mills would say those individuals are willing to take the risks and also say they benefit from cigarettes. Society should not impose any restrictions on their ability to choose. However, since cigarettes and cigarette advertising have health risks, they needto be taxed. Taxation would not be viewed as a prohibitive measure on an individuals ability to choose rather as a means to ensure that those who manufacturer and advertise cigarettes understand their role in providing the individual with proper disclosure. Payment through taxation would be a means to accomplish this task.Utilitarianism is considered at every step of the decision making process. Utilitarianism would not be viewed as a separate thought process or as a separate means at arriving at a decision. Utilitarianism would state that the taxation imposed upon cigarettes is not prohibitive to the individual. Rather it is prohibitive to the manufacturer in that it forces them to disclose the health risks or face further penalties outside of taxation.Regardless of the argument presented if cigarette advertising is wrong, it wouldnt only be a matter of free speech, a health issue or would utility help in explaining, Mills would state that it is the argument that enables the truth to be told. It is with constant debate that this truth would finally be realized.Not the truth as we would want it, imagine it, think it or have it told to us pure truth. It is the freedom to be able to discuss that truth, to be able to think through the steps to arrive at that truth, and the ability after(prenominal) the truth is found not to enforce that truth on anyone unless that individual intended to harm another with that truth. It is with this truth that w e as human beings can be better and achieve great things.Works CitedMill, J.S. On Liberty. London Penguin Books Ltd., 1974.