Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
John mill on liberty essay
John mill on liberty essay
Essays on liberty and freedoms
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: John mill on liberty essay
John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty is a text that of course deals with liberty, which ties in with one of the questions addressed by this course: What does freedom even mean? But something that I found new and interesting in this text is the author’s notion of three types of liberties: liberty to think, liberty to pursue, and the freedom to plan our own lives. Furthermore, he delves into the idea that the authority of society infringes on our individual liberty.
Coming into class today I did not think Mill truly addressed if we are actually free individuals, but as someone mentioned, he implies that we are not when he discusses the limits of the authority of society over the individual. The perfect example of this is on pages 83 to 89 which discuss
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
Foner focuses, specifically, on how the definition of liberty has been molded over time. He describes how other factors played a role in the change of liberty using three interrelated themes. The first theme, as he describes it, covers the dimensions or meanings of freedom. The dimensions include “political freedom, or the right to participate in public affairs… civil liberties, or rights that individuals can assert against authority…[and] moral or ‘Christian’ ideal of freedom,” the freedom to act morally or ethically good (Foner xvii). It also includes personal freedom or being able to make individual choices free from coercion, and “economic freedom…[which covers how] the kinds of economic relations constitute freedom for… [individual’s working lives]” (Foner xviii). All these dimensions are looked at individually as they play a role in reshaping the definition of freedom or liberty.
The Sons of Liberty was a group of men fighting for their independence. They were fighting before the continental congress or the beginning of the Revolutionary War. They were called out as being disobedient. They were believed to be political radicals at the time; doing what they felt was right for their town and their colonies. The Sons of Liberty were everyday men that expanded from New England all the way down the thirteen colonies. However, the high activity political gang started to appear with aggressiveness in Boston, Massachusetts. This paper will demonstrate the origins of the Sons of Liberty in Boston, their manifest, leading actions, and development within their first year.
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
...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.
Clarifying several points about Mill’s opinion on the principle of liberty will give supporting evidence that unless the harm to others can be averted, any reason for the limitation of liberty would not exist.
Mill also addresses the idea of governments interfering in an individual’s life in some form of help or benefit without infringing on any liberties by presenting his three objections. The first of which being the idea that “… when the thing to be done is likely to be better done by individuals than by the government.” (Mill p.121). He believed that individuals can best decide matters which pertain to their own life because they are the ones who are most “personally interested in it.” (Mill p.121) and because the individual is indeed usually the one who possesses the most intimate knowledge of their own life that they should not allow others to decide what is best for them personally. The second of Mill’s objections is that even when the individual
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...
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.
The term “civil or social liberties” is one that garners a lot of attention and focus from both Rousseau and Mill, although they tackle the subject from slightly different angles. Rousseau believes that the fundamental problem facing people’s capacity to leave the state of nature and enter a society in which their liberty is protected is the ability to “find a form of association that defends and protects the person and goods of each associate with all the common force, and by means of which each one, uniting with all, nevertheless obeys only himself and remains as free as before” (Rousseau 53). Man is forced to leave the state of nature because their resistance to the obstacles faced is beginning to fail (Rousseau 52). Mill does not delve as far back as Rousseau does and he begins his mission of finding a way to preserve people’s liberty in an organized society by looking to order of the ancient societies of Greece, Rome and England (Mill 5). These societies “consisted of a governing One, or a governing tribe or caste, who derived their authority from inheritance or conquest” (Mill 5). This sort of rule was viewed as necessary by the citizens but was also regarded as very dangerous by Mill as the lives of citizen’s were subject to the whims of the governing power who did not always have the best interests of everyone in mind. Mill proposes that the only time “power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (Mill 14) and this is one of the fundamental building blocks of Mill’s conception of liberty. Rousseau, on the other hand, places more importance on the concept of a civic liberty and duty whose virtue comes from the conformity of the particular will with the general will.
Fitzpatrick, J. R. (2006). John Stuart Mill's political philosophy: Balancing freedom and the collective good. London [u.a.: Continuum.
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.
John Stuarts Mills Theory of Individual liberty remains valid because it's uses a utilitarian framework in defining the principles of liberty. His Theory of individual liberty affirms non-conformity as beneficial to society, the harm principle gives a general guideline to the expression of freedom and it's limits, the utility of freedom is progressive in nature, thus must not be limited if society is to progress. In this utilitarian framework, he enforces the protection of individual liberty. In both cases it affirms the protection of the individual from his self and simultaneously prevents tyranny of majority opinion.
Mill, John Stuart. “Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion”. The Human Experience: Who Am I?. 8th ed. Winthrop University: Rock Hill SC, 2012. 53-57. Print.