In Chapter 4 of "On Liberty," Mill writes of Retribution, Rehabilitation, and Responsibility with regards to the expression of individuality, which I find significant in that these are still hugely debated concepts in Common Law and the extension thereof, i.e. American Criminal Justice.
Mill believes that retribution should be exacted upon a person whom in their exercise of their individuality, harms another or harms society. Mill believes that retribution should be held to an objective standard and he is careful to note that just because what one person does is objectionable to one's opinion does not mean that they have the right to exact punishment on that person unless "in cases of strong personal attachment," (79) which would seem to allude to spouses and family members, especially children. Mill's belief is that individual self-destruction will bring about the proper level of punishment which society should not encourage, but seek to alleviate in order to show the individual the error of their ways in hopes of discouraging further self destruction.
This idea, moves into what I believe we consider to be Retribution. Mill moves away from "an eye for an eye" and takes on this notion that "society [ought not] to abandon their own guidance [to] those who are manifestly unfit for it [(society)]" (83). When children are being brought up, society has the responsibility that they are good human beings that the qualities of admiration are encouraged, those qualities being those "which conduces his own good" (Mill 79), i.e. cultivating skills and talents. In this way, society has a responsibility to take care of its fallen members in the the interest of society not falling apart due to the lack of rehabilitation for an individual.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What does doing harm to society mean? This made me think of our discussion about Mill's statement about the right of self-protection and how it relates to society. We talked about how society cannot have the right to self-protection because this is the protection of the status quo. Mill talks about the importance of eccentricity in the development and discovery of new customs and new truths. Thus a society working towards self-preservation would be one that would be trying to restrict individuality if it threatens what is known and accepted. So wouldn't a challenge to society be a harm to it? As I read this work I become frustrated by some of the contradictions within it. Mill gives these grand principles, yet when he discusses specifics, what seemed black and white in theory becomes very gray. I understand that much in the world is gray and it is often hard to distinguish what is right, but often Mill speaks as if many things are self-evident. I found myself wondering in many of the examples he talks about, where's the line?
ReplyDelete