On Libertarian Utilitarianism

The nineteenth century is often called the age of "isms." During this time, many new doctrines were developed by various persons. One of the more important of these persons was John Stuart Mill. In his Utilitarianism, Mill laid the ground work for the doctrine of utilitarianism. This doctrine is based on the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number. Earlier in his life, Mill had written his essay On Liberty, in which he expounded his belief that no man's opinions or ideas should be suppressed unless they directly cause harm to another person. Mill has often received criticism from later generations because of the seeming contradiction between these two ideas. There seem to be times when an opinion should be suppressed in order to preserve the greatest good for the greatest number. I believe that, for the most part, the ideas of Mill in On Liberty should be followed before those of Utilitarianism.There are times when an opinion may surface in the thought pool of mankind that may lead to a lessening of the greatest good for the greatest number. If the opinion does not lead to violence and distress, I think that it should not be repressed. As an example of an opinion that could lessen the greatest good, I submit the following. A person from another country, after observing the United States for some time, comes to the conclusion that the United Sates is in a general decline. Its strength, moral standards, and power, both economically and politically, are deteriorating. This person predicts that the United States will soon fall as a world power and possibly as a united country, much like what occurred to the Roman Empire. Of course, most Americans are not going to like this opinion and will probably be offended by it. Because of this opinion, the general level of happiness will decrease and so will that of the greatest good.

The question to ask here is which Mill should a government heed in regard to this opinion? Should the United States government listen to the Mill of On Liberty and allow this opinion to spread through society or should it suppress the opinion and not allow Americans to hear it? I believe that the Mill of On Liberty should be heeded in this case. If the opinion is false, no harm is done. Actually, some good may be done in that it would fire up patriotic feelings. If the opinion ends up being true, it may make people open their eyes and realize the actual condition of the country and make them work towards improving it. Either way, the opinion has benefits, even if a large amount of people are offended by it. If the opinion were suppressed however, and it turned out to be true, the United States could vanish from the face of the earth when, instead, something could have been done to stop the decline.On occasion, an opinion may surface that is not true or false, it is just an opinion and may be malicious in its content or intentions. For an example, take the white supremacist opinions of the various neo-Nazi groups. They claim that Aryans are a superior race and, because of these beliefs, they persecute members of other races. Should these opinions be suppressed? I answer no. These opinions may offend many more people than they do not offend, but I still think that they give some benefits. It appears to me that it is partially because of opinions like these that people of various minorities have joined together to help each other overcome such adversities and persecutions. It has also made members of minority races strive to be better, just to prove these groups wrong. The opinions of white supremacists, while offending a great number of people, do not actually harm anyone. These opinions can, however, lead people to cause harm to fellow human beings. I believe that the government has the right and even the responsibility to suppress these actions, but it does not have the right to suppress the opinions.

It appears to me that the ideas of Mill in On Liberty and those in Utilitarianism do conflict with each other. Ideas that Mill supports in On Liberty he seems to condemn in Utilitarianism. When such a conflict occurs, I believe that the libertarian views of Mill are more important than his utilitarian ideas. Even though an opinion does decrease the total sum happiness for a society in the short term, in the long term it can only reestablish the total sum or, in some cases, even increase it. As long as an opinion does not direct others to harm any one person or group of people, that opinion has a right to be heard. The only cases when an opinion should be suppressed is when the opinion does direct people to harm others, or when the proponents of an opinion that is morally offensive to the majority of the people receive support from the government. The government has no right to support opinions that the greatest number find morally offensive (case in point: the recent exhibition supported by the National Endowment for the Arts in which various offensive exhibits were displayed). In all other cases, I believe that freedom of expression has priority over the greatest good for the greatest number. No one can say that another person's opinion is wrong, and thus no one has the right to suppress that opinion.