Sunday, February 19, 2012
Mill and Stephen have contrasting views on personal liberty,
Mill in that someone should be free to do anything that doesn’t bring harm, or
impede on others rights to personal liberty.
Stephen agrees, but also says there are something’s that are so morally
wrong that, although they may do no harm to another person, they must be
considered illegal based on their wrongness.
The episode of law and order portrayed many people doing illegal acts as
well as what some would consider wrong acts.
Two people in particular, the radio DJ, and the mother of the criminal
son are people that Stephen and Mill would argue about, in regards to their
rights to do certain things.
Both would have to agree that the mother was wrong in the
attempted murder of the radio DJ. She
was trying to rob him of the right to life, and that would be violation of his
basic liberties in every sense. Where
there might be disagreement between Mill and Stephen would be with what she was
doing throughout the episode by trying to ban the TV show and later the radio
show. Mill would argue that, while she
has a right to argue against the practices of both shows, she has no right to
try and get them banned or impede the shows through acts like picketing. Stephen might counter point, saying that some
of the principles of both shows, such as turning a child into a sexual object,
or using words to promote rape and hatred toward different groups of people are
wrong and that people have the right to demand they be stopped. In one of the cases, the sexual exploitation
of a minor led to her being targeted for physical and verbal abuse, clearly
bringing harm down upon her. In this
case wrong and immoral actions that should bring harm to no one, end up
indirectly harming someone involved, and at that point even Mill would have to
consider the possibility that not all wrong actions should be allowed.
Based on Mill’s ideas on personal liberties the radio DJ,
BJ, would be in the right, being allowed to speak his own opinions over his own
radio show. There is nothing making
those who don’t agree with his point of view listen to what he has to say, and
his show even brings a certain entertainment value to over two million
listeners. According to Mill, it would
be a gross violation of BJ’s personal liberties to have his voice censored or
taken off the air. However, the way he
talks about, and belittles very important issues such as rape, women’s rights
and integrity, and general respect towards other human beings, may be considered
something very morally wrong. Because of
this Stephen might argue that such obscene comments should not be put to public
ears, because BJ as a celebrity probably carries more influence then he gives
himself credit for and this could lead more people to shift their ideologies to
those of BJ’s. This would be a bad
situation, having an entire subsection of our society that views rape as a
decent act and women as inferior and in need of subjugation. Even these ideas should be considered wrong
on just a moral level, excluding the fact that such ideas could lead to people
acting and behaving based on these ideas.
I believe that Stephen might also argue against the director’s
attitudes towards his sixteen year old actress.
It would be considered wrong for him to marry the young girl based on
the facts that he would be taking advantage of: her emotional instability, his
role in her life as basically her father figure, and just the plain facts that
the emotional and psychological maturity yet to happen in her life would make
her unable to make a completely informed decision about marrying the man. Of course Mill would say in response that if
it was consensual on both sides, than nothing should be considered wrong with
the action. But there is a very good
chance that as she matures the girl will begin to realize the mistakes in
marrying someone twice her age, and then being in an unhappy marriage, her
mental condition could be in harm.
The criminal actions portrayed in the law and order episode
should be considered wrong and punishable by all. The debate on the actions of the characters
would be based around their actions and ideas that aren’t ‘illegal’ but may
still be morally wrong. Because of this
moral wrongness, Stephen and Mill would argue about whether the people committing
such flagrantly wrong actions should be forced to stop, or if they should be
defended on the principle that they are doing no wrong to others. However, it would seem that often times, when
an act is committed that is morally wrong, it often does bring about harm to
another individual.
No comments:
Post a Comment