More handpicked essays just for you.
Thinking about john stuart mill, how does mill understand the liberty of the individual
What is mill's conception of freedom
Thinking about john stuart mill, how does mill understand the liberty of the individual
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Thinking about john stuart mill, how does mill understand the liberty of the individual
For Mill, the freedom that enables each individual to explore his or her own particular way of life is essential for a generous and diverse development of humanity. The only source of potential within society to further continue human development is the spontaneity or creativity that lies within each individual. Mill has a utilitarian view on freedom. He was especially keen on individual liberty because it allowed the greatest measure of happiness. His concern is not to declare liberty as a natural right but to rather set out the appropriate constraints within ‘Civil or Social liberty’. Civil liberty is defined as the limit society can exert its legitimate power over each individual and social liberty has much to do with a political principle
that balances individual liberty and social justice.
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.
I will be discussing John Stuart Mill’s views on paternalism. I will argue how I feel about the subject. Then I will try my best to put myself into Mill’s shoes, argue back and try to see if I can understand where he is coming from with his arguments on paternalism. I plan on saying that there should be certain types of laws for different types of paternalistic acts, weak and strong for example. The laws should depend on what goes on when that act occurs and also after that act. I have strong views against Mill on the general way that he explains paternalism, but when I read more into depth Mill really says what I think should really be done.
...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 included various sets of principles under “the appropriate region of liberty.” Of these principles, Mill listed the first principle such that they are encompassed in one category. According to Mill, the first principle included, “the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience, in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling... or theological.” Within this principle, individuals have the right of picking whatsoever they desire and minting a liberty that affect themself. Moreover, Mill included the liberty of expressing opinions, and letting individuals to do what they want; having in mind their action doesn’t harm other individuals. Furthermore, Mill also included that in a democrat and liberty states, individuals should not be “forced or deceived” . According to Mill, no society can be considered free if these principles are not followed. Thus, in order one to be a democrat and liberty state, citizens must have the choice to follow these principles.
Mill’s three main point from this reading on “Limits of the Authority of Society over the Individual” are that society acts as a means of protecting us and each individual has a said role within, and that human beings should be concerned with the well-being of others rather than just self-interest.
He argues that liberty must be protected and it must be done in all cases. The framework of Mill about the protection of liberty from the oppression of a tyrant represents the root of his other ideas on his work. He defined liberty as “limits to the power which the ruler should be suffered to exercise over the community.” Mill clarified his position on liberty by defending three specific liberties, the liberty of thought and expression including the liberty of speaking and publishing, the liberty of action and of association. The framework, which is his view that liberty should be protected influenced and shapes his stand on the issues that he tackled on his work (s). On Liberty constituted the most persuasive and convincing defense of the principle of individual liberty ever
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.
In the essay written by John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, the topic of freedom of speech is discussed. First off I’d like to discuss how free speech is considered to be an advantage of living in North America and many other countries as well. But is it really? The government technically cannot put any restrictions on speech, because they can’t physically restrain people from saying something. The only thing that the government can do is invoke punishments and consequences for people who say things that the government does not want to be said for whatever reason. So is having free speech really an advantage? Maybe what we mean is that we have free speech without punishment. Or maybe we have free speech with very minimal limits. But should there be limits on speech in the first place?
In the first section of “Government” political theorist James Mill attempts to answer the question regarding the existence of the institution of government, as he believes that despite the abundance of literature regarding this topic, only few principles are well-established. Mill states that the reason for this is incorrect analysis, and existence of only a generalised conception, leading to endless disputes especially when deliberated upon.
Mill starts Chapter 1 of On Liberty by stating that "The subject of this essay is… the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual." This clarifies that his interest is not with the conditions of a "free society," but with the conditions of a civilization in which people can be free, and not just "politically" free, but able to develop as individuals. And so, he is interested in how society exerts power over people.
Chapter two of Mill’s On Liberty discusses the freedom of speech. Mill ultimately declares that a person is free to express his/her opinion as long as it does not cause physical harm to an individual’s person or possessions. This opinion can be “correct” or “wrong” and/or it can cause emotional harm; as long as Mill’s former harm principle is not violated, a person can have unlimited free speech. Mill explains that there is no possible way for one to know for certain that an opinion is true or false, only that one can work towards a more reasonable and logical opinion. Certainty means little if many people are certain that their differing opinions are true, and many opinions thought to be true have later been proven to be false such as slavery being accepted to it being inhumane. His strongest argument for this claim is that to suppress an opinion, one must be certain that it is incorrect and that the suppressor is infallible.
Mills thinks that society should not reject the expression of an opinion no matter who the individual is. He supports his point for freedom of though and expression by stating that none can be bold enough to say that their opinions are true and that other opinion are false. He added that even if it is believed that a person’s opinion is wrong it should never be suppressed but should be allowed it to be fully expressed. Mills believes that when a person’s thoughts or opinions are suppressed, then it will be believed that that individual’s opinion is not true but false.
Mill thinks Utilitarianism is based on a theory about a principle of “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” He believes happiness is pleasure and the absence of pain. I think Peter Singer does not think that our distance from an evil should alter our decision whether we help those people suffering evil. He made an example about walking past a shallow pond and seeing a child drowning, and saying he ought to pull the child out. There is no moral difference pulling the child out if it were a neighbors child, and there is no distinction between cases that he is the only person that could do anything. He makes a claim that the fact that the person is physically
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.