On Liberty — Mill

Society may limit an adult's liberty against their will only to prevent harm to others.

Mill says an adult is sovereign over their own body and mind; forcing them for their own benefit treats them like a child.

In matters that mainly concern only you, you have final authority; society may advise but not coerce.

One that mainly affects only the person doing it — Mill says it must be left free.

One that harms other people — the zone where the harm principle allows society to step in.

No — mere offence or disapproval isn't harm; a definite injury or broken duty to a specific person is.

Almost nothing affects only you; Mill answers by distinguishing offence (not harm) from real injury (harm).

Coercing an adult purely for their own good — society may persuade, never force, in self-regarding matters.

To silence an opinion is to assume you can't possibly be wrong — but confident majorities have often been wrong.

The view might be true; might be partly true; and even if false, opposition keeps our own truth alive.

Even one dissenter has no less right to speak than everyone else has to silence them — silencing is never justified.

A true belief held by habit, without understanding why it's true — because it's never been challenged.

A belief you both grasp and can defend, because you've met the objections to it.

Meeting it forces us to understand why our own view is true, keeping it a living truth rather than dead dogma.

No — he defends free speech precisely because truth exists and open debate is how fallible people reach it.

Silencing a view robs all listeners of a possible truth, a half-truth, or the challenge that keeps their truth alive.

Developing your own character and way of living rather than just copying the custom around you.

Trying out unusual ways of life so society can see which ones work and learn from them.

A life you genuinely choose exercises your judgement and makes you a fuller person, unlike a copied one.

The successful experiments teach everyone, so a society that allows difference keeps improving.

Copying custom just because it's custom leaves your own judgement unused, like a machine.

Custom might be right, but following it blindly means you never develop the powers that make a life fully human.

An unchallenged truth rots into dead dogma; an unchallenged life rots into mere custom — both die without difference.

No — it operates inside the harm principle: live your own way only where you don't harm others.

The pressure of majority opinion and custom forcing everyone to conform — a tyranny by the crowd, not the state.

It leaves 'fewer means of escape' and reaches into the details of daily life, so it's harder to dodge than a law.

At the edge of self-regarding conduct — beyond it, using pressure to force conformity is tyranny (the harm principle).

One harm principle, applied to the mind (free speech) and to life (individuality), defended against the crowd.

Unchallenged truth becomes dead dogma; unchallenged life becomes mere custom — both die without difference.

Expressing a view is fine; using collective pressure to force conformity where no one is harmed is the tyranny.

Open-book, one text: part (a) explain a concept [10] + part (b) evaluate a claim [15]; answer ONE question.

Quote a short phrase accurately, then explain it in your own words; don't just copy the text out.