Mills vs. Stephens

Overall, I agree more with Fitzjames Stephen. There is a clear connection between laws and morals. I also agree with the fact that he says, “legislation ought in all cases to be graduated to the existing level of morals in the time and country in which it is employed.” Yes, it is true, public opinion may be flawed due to ignorance or majority rule, but essentially, that is all we have to go off of. Historical events like slavery and the holocaust, were clearly wrong from a moral standpoint, but it proves that law and morals are connected. The laws at the time were based on the majority public opinion because at the time, people legitimately thought they were right. This is where Mills point about questioning the assumed truth comes in. I agree with his point that even if we truly believe something as truth, we should never prevent or stop criticism or questioning of that truth, for “when an opinion is true, it may be extinguished once, twice, or many times, but in the course of ages there will generally be found persons to rediscover it.” So no matter how many times the public questions and even refuses a truth, it will inevitably resurface, if it is indeed a certain truth. I don’t understand how Mills can say this, and then deny that there is a link between morals and law because aren’t the “truths” he speaks of basically the morals and opinions of society? They ultimately cause us to create the laws. And when we question “truths” are we not questioning public opinion and the morals of the time? Is Mill ultimately implying we should have no regards to morals when creating law? Would we even have law if no morals are considered because even according to his harm principle, not doing harm to others in in fact a moral in itself. 

Kind of in line with the previous questions and statements, comes my next topic. Mill says that our social stigmas and public opinion ultimately restrict out “mental freedom” and in many times intrude on our privacy more than any other law ever would. In a way, I agree, for as humans, we do sometimes get stuck in a mental state due to a sort of “brain wash” from society. And yes, as Mill says, sometimes we don’t punish the heretics per say, but essentially we punish the non heretics by cramping their mental development as they fear being accused of heresy.  Ultimately, I don’t think the social stigmas and public opinion really limit our liberty. As humans, we are sadly a bit unoriginal. We require human interaction and communication to develop and spark novel ideas. It is out of flawed public opinion that new ideas actually come from. Public stigmas do not suppress the thoughts of those who are truly original, for originality implies that they have no basis in current thought. In fact, many see something they do not agree with in public opinion, and from there, they come up with new thoughts. This is where I agree with Stephens again. He talks about how people form and express ideas based on others’ ideas, this is where public opinion starts. We continually educate each other as Stephen says, and at the time our laws should be reflective of those teachings. We cannot completely eradicate public opinion from basic laws, for public opinions are all that we have to rely on. It’s the same as the morals. Public opinion and morals are the core of all laws. How can Stephens say that we should only have laws based on public opinion if they follow his harm principle? Our laws would not be very comprehensive if public opinion were not considered. And even though it is possible that a majority of people may have a flawed public opinion, a constant questioning as Mill proposes, will prevent a wrong opinion from establishing itself in law for extensive amounts of time. He says, the truth will ultimately come forth, and thus he shouldn’t be concerned that public opinion cramps mental freedom.Public opinion and morals should be the basis of laws, for if they are not, what will our laws be based on?