Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
John stuart mill on liberty analysis
John stuart mill on liberty analysis
John stuart mill on liberty analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: John stuart mill on liberty analysis
John Stuart Mill on Individual Liberty
Definition of Individual liberty
In his work On Liberty, Mill placed much emphasis on individual liberty and its vital role in political society. To Mill, this phrase may be defined as the liberty of the individual to be the final judge over his actions; to decide what is right and wrong and to act upon that standard. On a secondary level, it also implies one's freedom to pursue one's own individuality. Mill believed in a society in which each individual leads his own distinctive life according to his own unique talents; unfettered by regulations upon thought, opinion, actions etc.
However, Mill asserts an important caveat; that which he calls `the very simple principle'. He writes, `That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant' .
Here Mill dismisses the interference of the state on three grounds: i) paternalist considerations, i.e. relating to preventing a person from harming himself, or to forcing him to benefit himself; ii) moralist reasons, i.e. relating to the insistence of the current moral sentiments of society, and finally, iii) welfare considerations, i.e. relating to restricting of an individual's liberty for the good of others.
In other words, Mill's individual liberty is as such: unless one's actions have injurious repercussions, one has the individual liberty to act as he wishes. Mill's principle sought...
... middle of paper ...
...still be more useful as a guideline that can be side-stepped in special circumstances i.e. when stability is threatened. Nonetheless, what may fall under the category of `special circumstances' is another moot point that will probably remain highly contended and unresolved.
References
A. Ryan, J. S. Mill (New York: Routledge, 1975)
Boucher, David, and Paul Kelly. Political Thinkers: From Socrates to the Present (Oxford: O.U.P, 2004)
Cowling, Maurice. Mill and Liberalism. 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963.)
Gray, John., "John Stuart Mill: the crisis of liberalism" in B. Redhead Plato to NATO (London: Penguin, 1995)
Mill, J.S. On Liberty. (Massachusetts: Agora Publications, 2003.)
Rees, John C. John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985.)
Ten, C.L. Mill On Liberty. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980.)
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
Richard Lebow’s analyzed Mill’s arguments sustaining that it can be identified two contrary visions; one arguing for the market on its own and the other for the necessity of a state’s intervention. This classification of two clearly opposed views is also raised by Gide and Rist in the following statement “During the first half of his life, Mill was an individualist who was deeply committed to utilitarianism. During the second half, he was a socialist who remained a champion of individual liberty” (1947, page
Eric Foner, Give Me Liberty: An American History (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2008), 326.
From top to bottom, John Stuart Mill put forth an incredible essay depicting the various unknown complexities of morality. He has a remarkable understanding and appreciation of utilitarianism and throughout the essay the audience can grasp a clearer understanding of morality. Morality, itself, may never be totally defined, but despite the struggle and lack of definition it still has meaning. Moral instinct comes differently to everyone making it incredibly difficult to discover a basis of morality. Society may never effectively establish the basis, but Mill’s essay provides people with a good idea.
...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.
Foner, Eric. "Chapter 9." Give Me Liberty!: An American History. Brief Third ed. Vol. One. New York: W.W. Norton, 2012. N. pag. Print.
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...
First, Mill establishes the foundation of his theory by addressing how we should seek happiness in our lives. He says, “The happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct is not the agent’s
Mill’s convincing argument explains the context that natural rights are nonsense when they do not have legal protection and the hierarchal morality innately exists in mankind. Together Mill accounts for the legal and morality of natural rights.
Foner, E. (2008). Give me Liberty: An American History. New York, Ny: WW. Norton &
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...
4.de Toqueville, Alexis. Eric Foner, Give Me Liberty: An American History (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2008), 358.
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.
Fitzpatrick, J. R. (2006). John Stuart Mill's political philosophy: Balancing freedom and the collective good. London [u.a.: Continuum.
In this instance, Mill would agree with the court ruling because, like his views concerning free exercise of will, government restriction and majority rule, both the court ruling and Mill’s ideals are concerned for the best interests of the individual rather than for the greater good of society. Complete free exercise will inhibit individual and societal freedom. According to Mill, one may act as one chooses unless one is inflicting harm on others. He argues that one is free to behave “according to his own inclination and judgment in things which concern himself” as long as “he refrains from molesting” (64). The problem arises in the freedom allowed to the individual performing the potentially dangerous act.