More handpicked essays just for you.
Critique the work of the john stuart mill
Five importance of representative democracy
Critique the work of the john stuart mill
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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 …show more content…
despot would need to be able to discern and choose men who are both able and honest, and fit to oversee each branch of administration. Mill goes on to say that even if the difficulties of having a despotic monarchy disappeared, we would still be left with an issue: One person with extraordinary mental activity governing all the affairs of a mentally passive population. Mill then explains why the people become passive. Their passivity results from them not exercising their will and voicing their opinions.
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
people. One of freedom’s benefits is a ruler’s inability to pass by people’s minds and alter their affairs. Mill asserts that a good despotism is an entirely false ideal. Mill closes by informing us on the best form of government, that is, a representative government – a government in which the sovereignty lies in the entire population. Mill closes by saying that the ideally best form of government is one which has the most beneficial immediate and prospective consequences in circumstances in which it is practicable and eligible. I agree with Mill that a despotic monarchy is a false ideal. Despotic monarchy reminds me of communism. Communism looks good in theory but is absolutely terrible in reality. There is no such thing as a “good despot”. John Dalberg-Acton said, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” An individual with absolute power puts himself and all under him in danger. Human beings desire power
Given that despots have every interest in keeping people isolated, the individualism resulting from equality makes despotism a great danger to equality. "Despotism... sees in the separation among men the surest guarantee of its continuance, and it usually makes every effort to keep them separate" (399). Exercising freedom through participation in public affairs is therefore extremely vital because it gives people a personal interest in thinking about others in society. Local self-governments are important because they draw people together, and it is therefore more likely that they will exercise their liberty. Tocqueville states that "as soon as a man begins to treat of public affairs in public, he begins to perceive that he is not so independent of his fellow men as he had first imagined, and that in order to obtain their support he must often lend them his cooperation" (400). When people act together they frequently form dependencies on one another, especially when they are working for the good of the entire community.
In seeing interests too varied, a ruler or executive is forced to impose domination onto the people he is supposed to serve (Montesquieu 140). This not only once again corrupts the principles of democracy, but it also weakens the entire collective of states. Such domination incites the people to rise up against those that govern them and to expel them and challenge their ability to govern and lead a free people – much as Shay’s rebellion demonstrates. Montesquieu is wise here to realize that the only way to govern large swaths of land is only through monarchy and despotism – that of which we have only so recently freed ourselves from (142). When large amounts of territory are placed under a single government, the only way it can govern itself is through coercion and force. In a mid-sized territory, failure to do so leads to the rise of an aristocracy that will, much like the aforementioned wealthy man, will see the oppression of their fellow man as the means necessary to advance their own wealth (Montesquieu 141). In a large territory, despotic command becomes necessary to ensure that the laws and powers of the government are followed quickly and immediately so that the territory can be adequately governed (Montesquieu 142). Both of these would lead to violence and the destruction of liberty and
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.
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.
However different their views maybe both Hobbes and Mill are in agreement in their views that the power of the leader or leading and governing body should not be used to harm the people of the state; “It is true that they that have sovereign power may commit iniquity, but not injustice, or injury in the proper signification.” (Hobbes, Leviathan Pg.113) That having been said Hobbes’ approach and view of the situation of absolute authority can easily be turned into a tyranny, allowing the government the ability to commit iniquity, should not be something that is so easily accepted. If the people are made to believe that they cannot govern themselves they will be far less willing to trust the state and sacrifice aspects of their lives for the preservation of the state.
Lastly Mills highlights how a truly democratic state can be achieved. There is a need for a public that acts a medium for true political change, skilled men who form the higher powers of the state and have no vested corporate interests, dependable parties that debate openly and lucidly the problems faced by the world and finally liberated institutions between the public and the elite that act as proponent for the public opinion.
John Stuart Mill was born on May 20, 1806, in London, England. He was mostly known for his radical views. For example, he preached sexual equality, divorce, universal suffrage, free speech, and proportional representation. He had many works of writings such as Principles of Political Economy, On Liberty, The Subjections of Women, and the Three Essays of Religion: Nature, the Utility of Religion, and Theism.
John Stuart Mill argues that the rightness or wrongness of an action, or type of action, is a function of the goodness or badness of its consequences, where good consequences are ones that maximize the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. In this essay I will evaluate the essential features of Mill’s ethical theory, how that utilitarianism gives wrong answers to moral questions and partiality are damaging to Utilitarianism.
“There are some who lack confidence in the integrity and capacity of the people to govern themselves. To all who entertain such fears I will most respectfully say that I entertain none… If man is not capable, and it not to be trusted with the government of himself, is he to be trusted with the government of others… Who, then, will govern? The answer must be, man – for we have no angels in the shape of men, as yet, who are willing to take charge...
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.
...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.
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.
JOHN STUART MILL famously dubbed the Conservative Party the “stupid party.” Mill was, of course, a liberal—but then so are most intellectuals. The English conservative, Roger Scruton, has recently written of his own experience growing up in the middle of the 20th century: “[A]lmost all English intellectuals regarded the term ‘conservative’ as a term of abuse. … [it was] to be on the side of age against youth, the past against the future, authority against innovation … spontaneity and
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.