Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Analysis of Mill’s argument in defense of liberty
Analysis of Mill’s argument in defense of liberty
Criticisms of Mill's theory of liberty
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Analysis of Mill’s argument in defense of liberty
1. According to Mill, government tyranny is still possible in democracies because its very foundation is susceptible to, “the tyranny of the majority,” (Mill). In this form of tyranny, the voice of some may be silenced or overruled by the collective voice of the majority, or even by those who get themselves to be accepted as the majority. The majority, in this case, will exert their will over those residing in lesser positions of power. 2. In addition to the tyranny of the majority, democracies are subject to a second type of tyranny that is deeply rooted within the framework and lives of individuals—social tyranny. Society itself at times can be a relentless tyrant. This “social tyranny” is not restricted to what society can do through the acts of political government, …show more content…
Mill asserts that liberty holds an insurmountable amount of value not only to society itself, but also to the individual members that it is comprised of. In regards to the freedom of conscience, opinion, and expression this assertion holds true and must therefore be defended. The freedom of conscience, in all forms, allows for an individual to, “[correct his or her] mistakes by discussion and experience,” (Mill). To censor this would not only deprive one individual, but the entire human race from a moment of deeper reflection and improvement. 5. Individuality is valuable in that, “experiments in living,” tend to defer from that which is normally acceptable (Mill). It draws its usefulness from either pointing out the deficiencies of its opposition, or is even kept reasonable from the opposition of others. Hence, individual expression is essential for individual and social progress. 6. Government limitation on liberty is justified when, “it affects prejudicially the interest of others,” (Mill). Essentially, individuals must cooperate and share the burden of maintaining society. As a result of this, the state is justified in requiring individuals to perform positive acts—such as paying
Mill begins “On Liberty” by asserting the principle that we should never regulate the actions of others, except if those actions harm others. He goes on to suggest that we should not restrict speech, even when we find it false. What seems odd about this is that Mill is a utilitarian, which means that the rightness or wrongness of a policy or action depends on its consequences. Clearly, some speech does an awful lot of harm and not much good, so how can Mill hold the view that we should never censor? (Your answer should include Mill’s discussion of why censorship “robs the human race” and you should cover both cases in which the minority view is false and when it’s
One of the more severe charges against Mill's conception of liberty involves socio-cultural background of the author's politics. Mill advocates paternalism on moral grounds in several instances that suggest an intellectual bias and a level of intellectual superiority, embedded in the nineteenth century culture and the Western world. Under Mill's paradigm, freedom is limited to those who are capable of rationality, allowing despotism as a sufficient alternative to 'educating' in all other instances (Goldberg, 2000). Thus, one's incompetence allows for a coercive force and social control (Conly, 2013).
Although Anthem’s society seems extremely surreal, aspects of its collectivist society closely mirror today’s society. By its use of majority rule, America’s democracy models a collectivist society. Take elections for an example. Although, Americans vote individually, the decision ultimately is based on the country as a whole. The use of majority rule relates to
For more than two thousand years, the human race has struggled to effectively establish the basis of morality. Society has made little progress distinguishing between morally right and wrong. Even the most intellectual minds fail to distinguish the underlying principles of morality. A consensus on morality is far from being reached. The struggle to create a basis has created a vigorous warfare, bursting with disagreement and disputation. Despite the lack of understanding, John Stuart Mill confidently believes that truths can still have meaning even if society struggles to understand its principles. Mill does an outstanding job at depicting morality and for that the entire essay is a masterpiece. His claims throughout the essay could not be any closer to the truth.
...Mill does not implicitly trust or distrust man and therefore does not explicitly limit freedom, in fact he does define freedom in very liberal terms, however he does leave the potential for unlimited intervention into the personal freedoms of the individual by the state. This nullifies any freedoms or rights individuals are said to have because they subject to the whims and fancy of the state. All three beliefs regarding the nature of man and the purpose of the state are bound to their respective views regarding freedom, because one position perpetuates and demands a conclusion regarding another.
In relation to social obligations and advancement of society, Mill writes advocating the expression of one’s opinion as the main driving force. Mill states, “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in sile...
In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill speaks on matters concerning the “struggle between authority and liberty” and determining how the government should be balanced with the will of the common people. To aid these balances, Mill lays out indisputable freedoms for everyone including freedoms of thought and speech. He stresses that these freedoms are justified as long as they abstain from harm onto other people, but words have been known to hurt or offend. Hateful and unpopular thoughts can be ignored by common people just as they can say and believe whatever they wish to, but in the creation of laws that do affect everyone, leaders cannot discriminate against hearing any sort of opinion because doing so would increase the possibility of tyranny against a minority of any kind Mill wants to prevent. Every single opinion, no matter how unpopular, deserves to be heard by people of power, for even a thought of the unpopular or the minority could provide a shred of truth when leaders make decisions to better a majority of lives.
What are tyrants, one might ask. In the current sense of the word a tyrant is pejorative term, applied to an individual in power who is selfish and self preserving. A tyrant is an immoral being, ruling over those around him through force, a tax on the freedom of those he subjugates. Yet the question that one should be asking is where do tyrants come from? Plato proposed that tyrants are a product of democracy, that the liberty inherent to a democracy allows the self interested to manipulate the system(generally through appealing to the population at large) causing a system with little liberty. This paper aims to defend the claims of Plato concerning tyranny, particularly the origins of tyrants, as well as to propose the safeguards that democracy possesses to defend against tyranny. The two claims Plato makes that will be discussed here are that tyrants come from popular leaders, that tyrants require sycophants to support and protect them.
is very true. It is often said that democracy is just a tyranny of the majority. This can seem true
...nstead the state consists of rulers who behave like subjects and subjects who behave like rulers. The people begin to desire a strong leader, who will make the difficult decisions for them and bear the consequences: the Democracy has become a Tyranny.
In a majority rule the basic concept of democracy is that the people ultimately rule. The Government passes laws that appear to be the “deliberative will” of the people. However, Government doesn’t do everything the people wants. It takes in information absorbs it and comes with a solution for the majority. In order for the people to be heard they have to get out and participate in the political process. It is our constitutional right to vote, speak and contribute in the selection of our representative in a majority.
And because it is not necessary for them to voice their opinions, the public becomes uninterested and uninformed on the matters of government. This leaves people with stunted mental capacities. A good despotism is a government with no positive oppression by officers of state, but where all the interests of the public are managed for them. Mill asserts that despotism that consents not to be despotism could, in fact, be good. However, it depends on the despot. If the despot would refrain from exercising absolute power and instead, appoint a council chosen by the people, the despot could get rid of the evil elements of despotism. Mill continues to shed light on this despotic monarchy which is, in actuality, a representative government, when public opinion is allowed. Public opinion will either be for or against the despot. If it is against him, he can either put down opposition or defer to the nation. The former would cause animosity between the despot and the people; the latter would indicate a constitutional king rather than a monarch. Mill concludes by saying that the principle element behind a good government is the improvement of the
Ever since ancient Greece, philosophers have been debating for a method in which to create a true democracy. Ideally, such a government would utilize non-tyrannical majority rule, popular sovereignty and reason. Unfortunately, establishing this utopia is an impossible feat. Although society has imposed thoughtfulness upon people, humans are genetically hardwired to be selfish and corrupt. For this reason, human society will never achieve true democracy.
...nturies. Mill presents a clear and insightful argument, claiming that the government should not be concerned with the free will of the people unless explicit harm has been done to an individual. However, such ideals do not build a strong and lasting community. It is the role of the government to act in the best interests at all times through the prevention of harm and the encouragement of free thought.
Governments should be afraid of their people.”3( Quoted by Alan Moore, V for Vendetta) .In contrasts to the definition of authoritarianism, power is no longer in the hands of one ruler; but it now rests in the hands of the citizens of the state. According to Robert Dahl; “democratic theory is concerned with processes by which ordinary citizens exert a relatively high degree of control over leaders;”4 ( Quoted by Robert A. Dahl, A Preface to Democratic Theory, expanded edition). Dahl expressed that citizens are a definite factor for this political system to further define the system of democracy in a state. In one of Dahl’s work; “On Democracy”, he made a criteria on how Democracy works. In this criterion he expressed that this system does not give you what you want but gives you the chance to fight for what you want. The citizens are highly active in this system, because they get to address the needs of the community as a whole and not as individuals, and if it represents the majority, then the leader will grant this request for the citizens. The beauty of this system is that it represents all types of non-violent movements without absolute freedom. It even highlights the term “Public Servants” to the state. It bonds the representatives and constituents. When it comes to weighing in the cons, I believe that the only downfall for this system is that, because it is somewhat transparent, citizens can figure out the leader’s next move and they can easily take advantage of this. With that being said, people might think they have absolute freedom, and instead of asking for what they need, they might just start asking for what they