ABSTRACT
In this chapter, the authors focus on the freedom to act and consider freedom of speech. Thomas Scanlon distinguishes artificial and natural arguments for freedom: artificial arguments depend on the existence of specific political institutions. Mill’s aim is to establish what rights people should have by determining when it is legitimate to interfere with their actions: only non-consensual harm-to-others is a ground for limiting a person’s freedom. The phrase ‘against his will’ allows that a person may consent to be harmed. The difficulty with legal moralism (and new natural law theory) is that it assumes more than just a shared morality – it assumes a shared conception of what is ultimately valuable. The core of freedom is the choice to do what the peoples want to do unimpeded by others. But our freedom can harm others, and so much of the debate is focused on justifications for limiting freedom.
