Liberty
...the necessary course of action. Although feelings may be hurt severely by the free speech of others, the just way for punishment is through further expression of opinion, not through law. Without conflicting points of view being expressed, people would forget that there are many others in the world who hold views that are completely opposite to their own. By hearing these different views, people should be able to better differentiate between right and wrong. Mill states: Human beings owe to each other help to distinguish the better from the worse, and encouragement to choose the former and avoid the latter. They should be forever stimulating each other to increased exercise of their higher faculties, and increased direction of their feelings and aims towards wise instead of foolish, elevating instead of degrading, objects and contemplations. (Mill 86) Ultimately, Mill believes that the better views will be recognized and enforced due to the intellectual conversations that people will engage in when their views have been challenged. At Brown University, Mill’s ideas of liberty are not followed exactly. There have been examples where people have been kicked out of the school or punished by the authorities for yelling racial comments. This issue results in conflicting opinions; many people believe that at a university, there should be some restrictions to the liberty that guarantees free speech. In other words, speech that involves hatred against a person for race, gender, sexual preference, etc. should not be allowed or tolerated. Under Mill’s decree, this kind of “hate speech” should be allowed and guaranteed as a liberty. Mill believes that hearing an expression of these unpopular views will allow the population to discuss these views more, and eventually the right viewpoint will prevail. I personally agree with Mill on this issue. College should prepare students for the “real world.” In the real world, there are numerous people who hold these condescending views. By hearing the views expressed, students will realize that these views do exist and their own views will be reinforced. They will be “distinguishing the better from the worse, and encouraging to choose the former and avoid the latter” (Mill 86). Mill’s arguments on liberty can also be applied to the much debated issue of abortion. Many people would state that people should be free to make their own decision about whether their unborn fetus should be aborted. Under certain circumstances, it would be better for the mother to not deliver the baby; therefore, the mother should be allowed to exercise a right of aborting it. However, this issue gets more complicated because this act does, in fact, harm another person (or person to be) – an act that is strictly forbidden by Mill in his account. The question now becomes whether the fetus is an actual person with rights that must be protected and upheld, and whether the rights of an already existing and living person preside over those of the unborn fetus. It is clear that a fetus is not yet a full human being, but it is also clear that it will soon become one. To most people, aborting a baby that is days from being delivered from the womb is like aborting an actual baby, which would therefore be murder. In his book, Life’s Dominion, Ronald Dworkin addresses the issue of when a fetus becomes a person: Consider the question of whether human life begins at conception. Scientists disagree about exactly when the biological life of any animal begins, but it seems undeniable that a human embryo is an identifiable living organism at least by the time it is implanted in a womb, which is approximately fourteen days after its conception. It is also undeniable that the cells that compose an implanted embryo already contain biological codes that will govern its later physical development. (Dworkin 21) It is obviously difficult to pinpoint the exact moment when the fetus becomes something more than just a fetus, but rather an “almost” person, causing its abortion to be far more distressing, and possibly even illegal. It is also unclear if, and when, the fetus is considered to be a constitutional person. Dworkin asks the reader to think about several questions, including: Does a fetus have interests that should be protected by rights, including a right to life? (Dworkin 23). Unfortunately, this question is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to answer. Some pro-life arguments state that the fetus does indeed have interests and rights from the instant of conception, and that abortion is wrong for that reason. Dworkin calls this argument the “derivative” claim (Dworkin 21). Another twist to the pro-life argument states that from the moment of conception a fetus embodies a form of human life which is sacred, a claim that does not imply that a fetus has interests of its own. This argument is called the “detached” claim (Dworkin 21). According to the derivative claim, a fetus has its own rights; therefore, it would be murder for a woman to have the liberty to dispose of her fetus. On the other hand, the detached claim states makes no implication that the fetus has rights or an interest of its own, making it possible, but highly discouraged, for a woman to exert the right to abort her fetus. It is impossible for people to come to an agreement about whether a fetus has rights that should be protected by the constitution and whether, if a fetus does in fact have rights, a woman’s rights should take precedence over those of the unborn. The middle region that best complies with both sides is to state th...