The short essay On Liberty was written by an English philosopher by the name of John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). In this essay Mill basically talk about the system of utilitarianism to society and the state. Mill attempts to establish standards for the relationship between authority and liberty. He emphasizes the importance of individuality which he conceived as a prerequisite to the higher pleasures the “summum bonum” of Utilitarianism. Furthermore, Mill criticized the errors of past attempts to defend individuality where democratic ideals resulted in the "tyranny of the majority". Mill explains his concept of individual freedom of his ideas on history and on the state. On Liberty relies on the idea that society progresses from lower to higher stages and that this …show more content…
progress reaches the climax in the arrival of a system of representative democracy. On by Mill and in this essay On Liberty was written by Mill to warn a so called second danger on liberty, which is called the “tyranny of majority”, which is basically about the freedom of the people and to have a right to have a say.
This evolution has brought on a new problem known as the tyranny of the majority, which the democratic majority forces its will on the minority. According to Wikipedia the phrase tyranny of the majority is” used when in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule involves the scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests above those of an individual or minority group, constituting active oppression comparable to that of a tyrant or despot. In many cases a disliked ethnic, religious or racial group is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the democratic process”. The democratic majority can exercise a tyrannical power even outside the political realm, when the people state their opinions it causes rebellions. John Stuart Mill emphasizes the importance of individuality. The aim was to limit the amount of power the ruler should have to exercise over the community and this limitation was what John Stuart Mill meant by
“Liberty”. According to Mill rights are freedom, positive rights are laws that have been set down, conventional rights are anything that is agreed on. In my opinion Mill was fighting for equality for the people and for them to actually have their freedom of speech their opinion hence the “tyranny of the majority”. Mill observes that liberty can be divided into three types, each of which must be recognized and respected by society. First, there is the liberty of thought and opinion. Second, type is the liberty of freedom to plan our own lives. Third, there is the liberty to join other like-minded individuals for a common purpose that does not hurt anyone. Each of these freedoms invalidates society’s tendency to compel agreements. Mill states in chapter two that we should not silence any of our opinions because if we do that would be morally wrong. Mill also points out that a viewpoint’s does not necessarily make it correct, this is why we must allow freedom of opinion. Mill says that argument/ disagreement is crucial, Mill defines crucial as the freedom of the individual to hold and articulate unpopular views, because it helps to preserve the truth, he also claims that the truth can easily be hidden in sources that are prejudice. Mill also discusses whether people who hold unpopular views should be allowed to act on them without being made social outcasts or facing a legal penalty. He states that actions cannot be as free as ideas or viewpoints, and the law must limit all actions who would harm others. He states that human beings are error prone, and therefore they need to experiment with different ways of living. However, individual liberty must be expressed in order to achieve social and personal progress.
He is was total opposite of Metternich. Mill’s “On liberty” essay was about the individual liberty. To Mill’s, the only important thing is the happiness of the individual, and such happiness may only be accomplished in an enlightened society, in which people are free to partake in their own interests. Thus, Mills stresses the important value of individuality, of personal development, both for the individual and society for future progress. For Mill, an educated person is the one who acts on what he or she understands and who does everything in his or her power to understand. Mill held this model out to all people, not just the specially gifted, and advocates individual initiative over social control. He emphasizes that things done by individuals are done better than those done by governments. Also, individual action advances the mental education of that individual, something that government action cannot ever do, and for government action always poses a threat to liberty and must be carefully
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.
Utilitarianism defined, is the contention that a man should judge everything based on the ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. In other words Utilitarianism states that good is what brings the most happiness to the most people. John Stuart Mill based his utilitarian principle on the decisions that we make. He says the decisions should always benefit the most people as much as possible no matter what the consequences might be. Mill says that we should weigh the outcomes and make our decisions based on the outcome that benefits the majority of the people. This leads to him stating that pleasure is the only desirable consequence of our decision or actions. Mill believes that human beings are endowed with the ability for conscious thought, and they are not satisfied with physical pleasures, but they strive to achieve pleasure of the mind as well.
John Stuart Mill defines liberty, as a limitation of power; “By liberty, was meant protection against the tyranny of the political rulers. The rulers were conceived (except in some of the popular governments of Greece) as in a necessarily antagonistic position to the people whom they ruled.” (John Stuart Mill “On Liberty” Pg. 29) This limit on power is what he refers to as civil liberty; the limitation is put into play for the people, Mill acknowled...
Kant and Mill both try to decide whether the process of doing something is distinguished as right or wrong. They explain that right or wrong is described as moral or immoral. In the writings of Grounding for the Metaphysics of morals Kant says that you only need to “act only according to the maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant, 30). Kant then states that a practical principal for how far the human will is concerned is thereby a categorical imperative, that everyone then is necessarily an end, and the end in itself establishes an objective principal of the will and can aid as a practical law (36). Mill on the other hand has the outlook that the greatest happiness principle, or utilitarianism, is that happiness and pleasure are the freedom from pain (Mill, 186). With these principles we will see that Kant and Mill correspond and contradict each other in their moral theories.
In On Liberty by John Stuart Mills, he presents four arguments regarding freedom of expression. According to Mills, we should encourage free speech and discussion, even though it may oppose a belief you deem to be true. Essentially, when you open up to other opinions, Mills believes you will end up closer to the truth. Instead of just accepting something as true because you are told, Mills argues that accepting both sides will make you understand why your side is true or false. Mills is persuasive in all four of his claims because as history would show, accepting both sides of an argument is how society improves.
John Stuart Mill discusses the concept of liberty in many ways. I’d like to focus on his ideas of the harm principle and touch a little on his thoughts about the freedom of action. The harm principle and freedom of action are just two subtopics of Mill’s extensive thoughts on the concept of liberty. Not only do I plan to discuss and explain each of these parts of the conception of liberty, but I also plan to discuss my thoughts and feelings. I have a few disagreements with Mill on the harm principle; they will be stated and explained.
Philosophy has offered many works and debates on morality and ethics. One of these works is the concept of utilitarianism. One of the most prominent writers on the theory of utilitarianism is John Stuart Mill. He suggests that utilitarianism may be the guide for morality. His writing on utilitarianism transcends through the present in relation to the famous movie The Matrix. In the movie, people live in a virtual reality where they are relatively happy and content and the real world is filled with a constant struggle to survive. The movie revolves around Neo, who tries to free people from the virtual world in which they live. In light of utilitarianism, freeing these people would be morally wrong. In this essay, I will first explain John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism and some objections it faces. I will then talk about utilitarianism’s relation to The Matrix and why it would be morally wrong to free the people and subject them to the real world.
Fitzpatrick, J. R. (2006). John Stuart Mill's political philosophy: Balancing freedom and the collective good. London [u.a.: Continuum.
Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. The Basic Writings of John Stuart Mill: On Liberty, The Subjection of Women, and Utilitarianism. New York: Modern Library, 2002. 3-119. Print.
CTI 100 Review Lecture: J.S. Mill's "On Liberty" Part 1 of 5." Lecture. YouTube. YouTube, 30 Nov. 2008. Web. 06 Mar. 2014.
In Considerations on Representative Government, Mill denounces the idea that a despotic monarchy headed by a good despot is the best form of government. Mill goes on to share the reason behind this idea. The reason lies in the supposition that a distinguished individual with absolute power will ensure that all the duties of government is performed intelligently and virtuously. Mill does not disagree with this belief but he finds the need to address it. He states that an “all-seeing” monarch rather than a “good monarch” is needed. The despot would need to be informed correctly and in detail at all time, and be able to oversee every division of administration with effective attention and care in the twenty-four hours per day he has. If not, the
With authority, Mill was very much against state getting too involved in the individual’s life. He believed that the individual should be able to follow and chose their own life plan without being obstructed or hindered by the state. However he was truly worried that this form of government would ultimately result in an intrusion upon people’s lives, and understood it would be hard for people to grasp these life plans being achieved without interception by the state. In his book ‘On Liberty’ he stated that the individual was self-sustaining and that the individual should be independent over themselves and their thoughts, feelings and movements. The state should only intervene when harm is forced upon to the individual but no sooner should they impinge. This is known as Mill’s harm theory, which has become prominent in modern day liberal theories.
middle of paper ... ... Philosophers, such as John Stuart Mill, have debated the role and the extension of government in the people’s lives for centuries. 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.