How Much Lee-way Should Society Affords Dissident Social Groups

Name of Student
Professor`s Name
Course
Date
Lee-way society affords dissident social groups
Throughout the writings of John Stuart Mill, the relations between state, society and individual is a theme that is constantly pursued. This theme is accorded impressive and special attention in On Liberty, an essay that is most controversial and often misunderstood among Mill`s works. The broad aim of Mill is to create the primacy of an individual as well as the freedom that is pertinent to the growth of his or her inherent powers. Establishing this primacy as conceived by Mill was compelling due to the situations during the critical era of transition that witnessed the birth of democracy, enlarged and improved media for the expression of opinions and emergence of active reformers. All these developments threatened the tyranny of the majority in the society — the independence of a person in whatever concerns need to be absolute. For Mill, this means the individual utility because liberty is a source of one`s development and at the same time a social utility for the reason that society ought to benefit from what sustains a rich and diverse individual life (Mill, and Lindsay). The progress of society is dependent on each person`s liberty. Nevertheless, society should afford this liberty to the extent that it does not cause harm to others.
Mill, in his writing On liberty, came up with the harm principle, a principle that asserts that the only rationale for which power may be exercised rightfully over any person in the civilized society, against his or her will is preventing any harm to others. The focus of Mill while writing this principle is based on the concern about the social liberty oppression by the authority, both social and government. Mill believed that people`s would possibly not reflect each person`s will in the community, but just the majority`s will or the individuals who become successful in presenting themselves as part of the majority. The majority`s will can express itself in the form of tyranny which can be more dangerous in comparison to political tyranny because it does not restrict itself within the legal and political sphere only. Additionally, it is a fact that societies that are tyrannical oppress those individuals who hold dissent opinions, feelings, moralities, and mandates. Tyrannical society not only acts by law but as well by the moral condemnation. Even though Mill is specifically pointing at the tyrannical society, generally, he is arguing that it is necessary to have some protection against the influence of the people in authority in order to ensure there is respect for the liberties of the minorities (Mill).
Furthermore, Mill argues for a type of liberty that cannot be interfered with. Mill then presents the harm principle that helps to govern the society and individuals. This principle basically, governs compulsion and control on individuals, be it through moral interference or legal laws. The only reason for coercion by society, which is legitimate under this principle, is the prevention of any harm to others. Adherence to this principle according to Mill is a way that can be used to protect the social liberties of people within society successfully. As such, the extent to which the society can accept dissident social groups which espouse extreme views is when their actions do not cause any harm to the rest of the society members.
When the actions or extreme views of the dissident social groups cause harm to the society, the society can interfere with the actions or their liberty. The actions done by dissident social groups such as such as harming themselves, which have the capability of causing harms to other individuals by contravening their rights, may be interfered with. For instance, society cannot entertain the inability of these social groups controlling their spending when they cannot support their kids or pay their debts. In this scenario, the society can condemn as well as punish them. Essentially, the society punishes them on the basis that they are not able to support their children or pay their debts and not simply because they are not able to control their expenditure. From this, it is abundantly clear that the society can respect the liberty of the dissident social groups to the extent that their actions do not harm others, in this case, the children or dependents.
Additionally, the society cannot espouse the liberties of the dissident social groups in instances when their actions hamper their specific responsibilities or duties. Taking an example of a policeman or doctor who gets drunk while performing their duties, the society can punish them since they owe the public a duty of being able of performing their duties during this time. As such, it is apparent that in such scenarios is unable to tolerate the liberty of these individuals since their actions will cause harm to the rest of the society members. Society can only accept the actions of these people by doing them in a manner that does not harm others, particularly those who depend on them.
Similarly, society can fail to promote the liberty of individuals, particularly those of dissident social groups, because they omit their responsibilities, thereby harming others. In this case, society is justified to exercise the power of these individuals in order to get them to perform actions or duties which if they do not, will harm others. In other words, the society can force individuals to assist others in certain situations, for instance, in defending the society against an external attack, in providing evidence in court, and in rescuing a person who is dying. Failure to perform these things may be declared immoral or illegal in society. The society, therefore, to a large extent can compel people to perform their duties or certain acts of necessity in the society in order to avoid harm to others.
Besides, society does not promote the freedom of the dissident social groups in situations where their...