Devlin Dworkin And Mill Essay Research Paper

Devlin, Dworkin And Mill Essay, Research Paper

In this essay, I will discuss the beliefs of J.S. Mill, Patrick Devlin and Ronald Dworkin. These three men hold different, yet similar positions on freedom of speech, privacy and society. First, I will illustrate how Dworkin s idea of a free society includes more details than Devlin s. Also, how Dworkin s moral reasoning is an important aspect of freedom. Next, I will explain Mill s harm principle in relation to Devlin and Dworkin. I will also illustrate that Mill s principles relate to censorship and drug laws. Finally, I will relate Mill s principle to Devlin s and present my rationale for Mill believing in principles that would prove to be sufficient for Devlin s free society.

Ronald Dworkin explains how Devlin s criterion for a free society is lacking rational standards for restrictions on freedom. These are the ground rules of moral reasoning in Dworkin s opinion and are imperative to a free society. For example, on page 35, regarding homosexuality Devlin states, We should ask ourselves in the first instance whether, looking at it calmly and dispassionately, we regard it as a vice so abominable that its mere presence is an offense. If that is the genuine feeling of the society in which we live, I do not see how society can be denied the right to eradicate it.

Dworkin believes that if a large portion of society deems something wrong, then this action does not represent society and should be banned. Dworkin does not concern himself with the location of the occurrence of the homosexual acts. In his opinion, if society agrees, all homosexual acts should be prohibited. Devlin, on the other side of the spectrum, feels that homosexual acts practiced in the privacy of the home should not be illegal. Devlin s position illustrates the need for public morality. However, public morality cannot infringe on a person s right to privacy. Also, Devlin supports the presumption of individual freedom. This means that individual freedom never has to be justified.

Dworkin examines the discriminatory concept of a moral position: The reason need not be a principle or theory at all. It must only point out some aspect or feature of homosexuality which moves me to regard it as immoral: the fact that the Bible forbids homosexuality, for example, or that one who practices it becomes unfit for marriage and parenthood (p.40). Dworkin believes that the enforcement of morality is necessary for society. For instance, government has the right to add and infer institution to maintain society.

Devlin failed to recognize the possibility of irrational judgments of the law. Dworkin believes that one must give reasons why he or she feels a judgment is justifiable, as some reasons are not justifiable because they violate society s norm, such as prejudice. He also states that government cannot treat people unfairly, or differently due to race or gender. According to Dworkin, debate will stop when 1) society reaches a consensus; and 2) one or more parties see the debate as axiomatic or self-evident.

Dworkin stated that moral judgments are the basis of law. However, this does not allow for prejudice, emotional reactions, rationalization, or parroting. The preceding reasons violate moral reasoning and therefore are not valid to disallow an action. Devlin, on the other hand, believes that humans require consensus on morality. If homosexual acts violate public morality and consequently, homosexual acts should be prohibited. Devlin s rationale disallows an anthropological basis for law. This is because it is a necessary standard for law to enforce morality.

Devlin believes in rules for any given society, although he says that government should implement these rules. Dworkin feels that members of the society should be able to create these rules, as we are living in a democratic society. Devlin s criterion allows too much room for indecision and different interpretation for Dworkin s ideals.

According too J.S. Mill, the harm principle means, If anyone does an act hurtful to others, there is a prima facie case for punishing him by law or, where legal penalties are not safely applicable, by general disapprobation, (p. 70). By this idea, the harm principle protects people from the acts of others. People are given freedom to do as they please until one s freedoms are harmful to others. A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury, (Mill p. 70). Mill also states on page 163, The individual is not accountable to society for his actions in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself. When society s disapproval of actions are prejudicial to the interests of others, the individual is accountable and may be subjected either to social or to legal punishment if society is of the opinion that the one or the other is requisite for its protection.

Mill advocates freedom for individuals, but he does not want people to have so much freedom so that they violate the freedom of another person. Mill believes that happiness is desirable, and happiness is a conclusion. Everything that occurs in the middle is simply the means to an end. Utilitarianism is an adequate label for Mill s ideology. Mill believes that more often than not, each person is the best judge as to what is beneficial to him or herself and the