Voluntary Slavery

Mill famously argues in Chapter V of On Liberty that a contract of voluntary slavery should be null and void. For Mill, we have no right to surrender our liberty. He argues "But by selling himself for a slave, he abdicates his libverty; he forgoes any future use of it beyond the single act. He therefore defeats, in his own case, the very purpose which is justification of allowing him to dispose of himself"(101). Is Mill correct? Why can't I surrender my liberty? If Mill is correct, how might this argument be applied to other cases? For example, can a democracy vote a government to power that promises to forever suspend a democratic vote?

"No Man is an Island"

Mill entertains the following objection in Chapter IV:

The distinction here pointed out between the part of a person's life which concerns only himself and that which concerns others, many persons will refuse to admit . . . No person is an entirely isolated being; it is impossibe for a person to do anything seriously or permanently hurtful to himslef without mischief reaching at least to his near connections and often far beyond them (78).

What is the objection he is considering? How does it undermine his position or argument? What is his response? What should his response be? Is there a response?

Free Speech v. Terrorism

Federal law prohibits material support for terrorist in the form of "training," "expert advice or assistance," "service," and "personnel." Human rights activists, however, have sought to train militant terrorist groups to use international law to resolve disputes. Although these groups do not advocate violence, their aid to terrorists violates federal law. This year in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project,the Supreme Court ruled in a 6 - 3 decision that the U.S. government has a compelling interest in preventing terrorism that outweighs the human rights groups' free speech rights. Is this ruling correct? Should such information and training be suppressed? How direct a harm is it to society? What would Mill say about this ruling?

Plato v. Mill: The Democratic Citizen

For Mill, only in a liberal state can a person fully develop capacities for thinking and deliberation. Only when citizens have the opportunity for choice do they develop into true thinkers and moral agents. For Plato, the democratic individual is free to pursue whatever he wants -- but that is the problem. Following his or her whims, free to pursue any activity regardless of his abilities, the democratic citizen is destined for unhappiness and lost potential. Who is right? What could either point toward in our American society as evidence for his point?

Pamphilus Has the Last Word

Pamphilus concludes at the end of the Dialogues, "Philo's principles are more probable than Demea's, but those of Cleanthes approach still nearer to the truth" (89). What are we to make of this observation? Is this supposed to be the judgment of Hume? Is this supposed to be ironic in some way? Does this statement tell us anything about the arguments -- or more about Pamphilus?

Evil? No Problem

In sections X and Xi, Philo and Demea catalogue human misery and Philo uses this evidence to prove that either God does NOT exist or He is NOT benevolent. Is this argument sound? If not, where does the argument fail? What about the possibility that suffering is part of some great good like free will or character development (a theodicy)?

Principle of Sufficient Reason: No Brute Facts?

You are hiking in a remote wilderness, miles from the nearest building or even cell phone tower. You come upon a clearing and see a crystal sphere hovering over you and emitting colorful light pulses in some seeming order: red, blue, green and the pattern repeats. Should there be an explanation for this odd phenomenon or is it acceptable to shrug our shoulders and mutter "Stuff happens"? Can we extrapolate from this case to a general principle of the universe? If so, can we prove that God (or a reasonable facsimile) exists?