Posts

Posted on

Absolute Certainty

On page 24 of On Liberty and the Subjection of Women by John Stuart Mills, he says “To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same think as absolute certainty.”

In this statement, Mills is talking about how no one knows for absolute certainty that their opinion is the right one. If someone is refusing to hear an alternate idea or opinion, based solely on the fact that they think is it wrong, is to deny the person of their own thought. If you refuse for this reason, you make making the impression that you think that you have all knowledge of that subject and that your opinion is the only right one. My question is, can anyone be absolutely certain about anything? Is it possible to know that your opinion is the ultimate truth?

Posted on

John Stuart Mill: Liberty of Thought Discussion Questions

In chapter 2 of Mill’s work, he emphasizes the importance of having a difference of opinion within society (particularly government, media, and other forums) so as to provide a diverse pool of ideas, solutions, and thoughts for the advancement of mankind, making the case for healthy discussion. Specifically, he states,

“…it is owing to a quality of the human mind, the source of everything respectable in man either as an intellectual or as a moral being, namely, that his (man’s) errors are corrigible. He is capable of rectifying his mistakes by discussion and experience. Not by experience alone. There must be discussion to show how experience is to be interpreted.” (pages 26-27)

Please answer or ponder the following questions for class discussion on Thursday, Sept. 24th.

1 ) Mill is very cautious of his words. Towards the beginning of this chapter he states that it is not just if all mankind silenced a single person with a contradictory view, however, he also states on page 25 that “An objection which applies to all conduct, can be no valid objection to any conduct in particular.” What is the importance of this distinction? Would he hold the view that silencing those with different opinions is different than ignoring or disregarding a person who disagrees with the concept of constructive discussion? What are some issues with the practicality of his opinions/ideas?

2 ) On page 29, Mill states,

“It is also often argued, and still oftener thought, that none but bad men would desire to weaken these salutary beliefs; and there can be nothing wrong, it is thought, in restraining bad men, and prohibiting what only such men would wish to practise. This mode of thinking makes the justification of restraints on discussion not a question of the truth of doctrines, but of their usefulness; and flatters itself by that means to escape the responsibility of claiming to be an infallible judge of opinions. But those who thus satisfy themselves, do not perceive that the assumption of infallibility is merely shifted from one point to another. The usefulness of an opinion is itself matter of opinion: as disputable, as open to discussion, and requiring discussion as much, as the opinion itself. There is the same need of an infallible judge of opinions to decide an opinion to be noxious, as to decide it to be false, unless the opinion condemned has full opportunity of defending itself.”

Given this statement, where do you think Mill would have stood on free speech with regard to hate speech and symbolism? Where would it fall under his view of speech? Should such symbols and ideals be protected as a right, or deserving of being cast aside as unworthy of consideration for progress? Focus on Mill’s own opinion as you answer.

3 ) On page 61 Mill states,

“But the principal offences of the kind are such as it is mostly impossible, unless by accidental self-betrayal, to bring home to conviction. The gravest of them is, to argue sophistically, to suppress facts or arguments, to misstate the elements of the case, or misrepresent the opposite opinion. But all this, even to the most aggravated degree, is so continually done in perfect good faith, by persons who are not considered, and in many other respects may not deserve to be considered, ignorant or incompetent, that it is rarely possible on adequate grounds conscientiously to stamp the misrepresentation as morally culpable…”

However, he consistently makes the case that it is wrong to condemn those of a different opinion as immoral. Where does this leave those who intentionally mislead others by misrepresenting facts in an argument? Is it wrong to condemn such actions as immoral? How can meaningful discourse about changing society for the better occur if there is a basic disagreement on how such discussions should be had, or even who should be allowed to partake in such debate?

4 ) How did you interpret this piece? Is Mill right or not? What are some issues with his ideas on discourse (do you think there are any)?

Posted on

Remember to Vote!!!

The election is on November 3, and it is vitally important that you make your voice heard! If you plan to vote in Pennsylvania, you must register by Oct. 19. You can do so here. If you will vote in another state, please check the registration deadline. Voters get extra credit! Send me a picture of yourself outside your polling place or at home with your sealed mail-in ballot.

Posted on

Morality and the Law- 9/22

Mill brings up an important and often overlooked dynamic when it comes to the relationship between religion and a country’s laws, “Suppose now that in a people, of whom the majority were Mussulmans [Muslim], that majority should insist on not permitting pork to be eaten within the limits of the country… Would it be a legitimate exercise of the moral authority of the public opinion? And if not, why not?”. The problem presented here is whether or not a public should decide laws based in their religion.

While a theocracy is a country whose identity is based entirely on the law of a religion, Mills is pointing to an example of a country who has a majority of the population following one religion, but not all of it. The question here is whether or not it is fair to force the religious minority of the country to follow laws based in the majority religion because they hold a moral authority within that country. There have been many countries that followed one religion or another, particularly denominations of Christianity in Europe, that became the basis of laws and social norms.

However, in places like the US that have a separation of church and state are not immune to this question either. People, in general, will base their sense of right and wrong in the religion that they believe in. So, the policies that they vote for are influenced by one religion or another. It is dangerous to exclude the religion of people from the discussion of politics because what people think politics should be and the laws that should be enacted are based on their sense of right and wrong, which directly stems from the teachings of their religion. Should we base our laws on morality? Can morality be objective, or is it only something that a society collectively agrees is wrong? Do you agree with Mill’s question of whether or not the majority of the public should enact laws based on their religion in the name of morality, or should the minority get a greater say in those types of laws?

Posted on

Importance of Women

In the “Characteristics of the women of England”, Ellis exaggerates that middle-class households could only be successful if the women focused solely on the well being of their household. She describes these women as “… guardians of comfort of their homes” (page 156). Without women the house will go into chaos. Even though, a key factor of success in these houses were to have women, they were still going without recognition. Why is it that women play such a huge role in England yet get no recognition? Was it because they would always be seen as inferior to men or because no one really saw their actions as being important?

Posted on

“The Workers’ Union” – A Plea for Coordination and Leadership

In Flora Tristan’s “The Workers’ Union,” an appeal to emotion is made to frustrate the workers in recalling how little progress has been made in the quarter of a century prior to the publication of this work in taking care of the European, in particular the French, working class. As we’ve discussed in class, one of the most major issues with these types of writing, like Engels’ call for action for example, is that they seem to believe that the working class can both afford the time to improve their livelihood and have the education needed to understand how they can bring about meaningful change/reform. Tristan’s call differs in this regard because she acknowledges that just the publication of her work will not be enough. Specifically, she states on page 192 that,

“I understand that, my book published, I have another work to accomplish, which is to go myself, proposal for union in hand, from city to city, from one end of France to another, to speak to the workers who do not know how to read and to those who haven’t the time to read. I tell myself that the moment has come to act. And for those who really love the workers, who want to devote themselves, body and soul, to their cause, a wonderful mission there is to fulfil.”

We can see through this quote that her piece is intended just as much for those urging reform as the working class itself, saying that just lecturing from a distance is not enough. There needs to be a sense of responsibility, of teaching, to spread beneficial ideals that will make society a better place. If people are unwilling to do this, it isn’t doing that much to improve conditions as her critique of the last two decades shows.

This compounds upon her earlier request for coordination. She advocates for a sort of union organization with dues to be paid so that money can be used to bring about change by applying pressure to the government and if necessary help look after individuals who are older, injured, or at some sort of risk due to their economic predicament which the then-current system facilitated. She compares such a system to the the Hotel des Invalides, a sort of government-run care facility for retired French servicemen, and puts forward an idea of paying into retirement care down the road in a way that sounds very familiar to the concept of U.S. Social Security. In this way she not only says that the working class needs more direct coordination from leaders who champion reform, but the movement itself needs to get behind a concerted effort to solve problems on its own if nobody else is willing to step up to the plate.

In a way, Tristan is taking a more hands-on approach. There are many parallels to various progressive movements in American and European history, but if I had to make one, it would be that if Engels is to working class reform what Harriet Beecher-Stowe was to American abolitionism, then Flora Tristan would be the movement’s equivalent to someone along the lines of a John Brown.

Tristan died only about a year after she published this book, our reading states, and was in poor health for much of that time. So the saddest part of this movement to me is how we never got to see exactly what effect her tour and travels would have had in bringing about change. What would this have looked like? Would sweeping reform had come sooner if she had lived? What leaders might have answered her call? Would she have gotten more radical over time? Would women have gotten more political power and leverage sooner than what was the case as we know it? It is certainly intriguing to think of the possibilities. Personally, I read her piece and I see a leader who has mapped out exactly what she wants to push for and thinks she knows exactly how she wants to make it happen.

Posted on

Hidden Amongst Society

“For it is in the most polished society that noisome reptiles and venomous serpents lurk under the rank herbage…” Vindication of the Rights of Women chapter 9 (page 155)

Mary Wollstonecraft, much like her daughter, was a phenomenal writer who pushed the boundaries of society during her time through writing. Wollstonecraft as a woman was able to capture the underlying problems that existed in society that many wished to hide. In chapter 9, Wollstonecraft begins the chapter explaining that while people attempt to make the world look better than it is; it grows conceit and anger amongst those who do not have the option to have a voice in society Wollstonecraft’s main focus in this passage is about the women that are oppressed within society. She continues on page 176 explaining the difference between men and women and how they are expected to survive in their society. Does Wollstonecraft argue that women and others put down by others in this society deserve the right to become venomous or is she searching for an answer on how to change this?

Posted on

What is loyalty?

On thing that personally became clear to me while reading the Documents on the Status of German Jewry and the Debate over Jewish Emancipation is how little I knew about the history of Jewish people in Europe before World War II and I’m glad that I know a little more after reading this primary source. However I do feel like I was able to better understand the history of antisemitism and why it took shape and was either widely accepted or widely ignored in Germany over a hundred years later due to my knowledge of that time. 

Going to Heinrich Paulus’ letter to Riesser, this idea that the responsibility is on the individual to demonstrate their loyalty to a certain nation even when other people born in the same nation do not share the same burden seems to play a recurring role throughout history (155). When large groups of Irish immigrated to the United States throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, there was the idea that they couldn’t be trusted because their loyalty would always belong firstly to the Pope and the Catholic Church. Another instance is after the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the treatment of Americans of Japanese descent, specifically with Executive Order 9066 and the internment of Japanese Americans in internment camps. This paired with the fact that there was no comparable effort to protect America from Americans with German or Italian descent even after we went to war with both, shows it was more at play than a wartime protection.

Although these situations are not the exact and therefore not a perfect comparison, I still do see similarities on this idea of loyalty has allowed people to restrict the rights and classify entire groups of people based on a common belief system or ancestry. I wonder how much that has been used as an excuse to make the racism or xenophobia which is really driving people. Since loyalty is such an abstract idea, to me, it seems like it is creating an impossible standard for the group in question to achieve, allowing them to be treated differently or worse. Do you see other examples of history where this rhetoric of “other-ism” has been interconnected with this idea of loyalty? Do you agree that it is just a way to mask prejudice or do you see it differently? Finally, do you think that the extensive history of antisemitism makes what these sources are discussing (Jewish Emancipation) unique when comparing them to the examples I gave above? Especially because in all of the examples I gave, the treatment of those people in America had passed relatively quickly.

Posted on

German Nationalism from the Jewish Population Achieves Little

“They have fought both as conscripts and volunteers in proportionate numbers within the ranks fo the German forces” Readings in Western Civilization chapter 8 (page 156). “They” referring to the German Jewish population, who despite volunteering in the German militia and fighting alongside the rest of the country, were not considered German citizens. The Jewish population in France had a similar story fighting in the French Revolution, but they ultimately gained citizenship through extensive debate in the National Assembly. The divide between the bourgeois and working class following the French Revolution, along with the disregard of the German Jewish population after they fought in the militia, raises the question, is it in the nature of the bourgeois to cast aside the lower classes after they fight together to achieve a common objective?

Posted on

The soul vs the body-9/15

Mary Wollstonecraft argues for equality between men and women in The Vindication of the Rights of Women . There are several points that she makes, but the one that stood out to me was the distinction between a person’s physical body and their soul or mind. There are two arguments that she uses this in, “I speak collectively of the whole sex; but I see not the shadow of a reason to conclude that their virtues should differ in respect to their nature. In fact, how can they, if virtue has one eternal standard?”. As well as a possible difference in the nature of a soul, “I have been led to imagine that the few extraordinary women who have rushed in eccentrical directions out of the orbit prescribed to their sex, were male spirits, confined by mistake in female frames… the inferiority must depend on the organs; or the heavenly fire [the soul]… is not given in equal portions”.

The first quote I picked is about the standard at which we judge a person’s virtue. If men are superior, they are judged for their virtue. However, since the definition of virtue, by nature, is unchanging, then women are also judged by that same standard. There can be no inherent difference, she argues, because both men and women are judged on the same level. Here, she focuses on a person’s soul, and concludes that all souls are equally capable of being virtuous.

The second quote deals with the relationship between the soul and the body it inhabits. If a man’s soul is superior by nature, then the women who have accomplished similar feats must have a man’s soul. This undermines the ‘superiority’ that men have simply for being a man physically, one sex does not have an inherent right over the other if women can have a male soul. If that is not true, then the fault must lie with the physical construction of a man or woman. If that is the case, then there is no difference between souls in either body, and men are only physically superior due to an inequality of traits.

Wollstonecraft distinguishes between a person’s soul and their physical body. How would this idea been received at the time, or even now? Why is this distinction important to her arguments for equality?

css.php