More handpicked essays just for you.
Account of the mill's liberty
Philosophers analysis of johhn stuart mill on liberty
John stuart mill on individual liberty
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Account of the mill's liberty
English philosopher, John Stuart Mill’s work, On Liberty, is one of the most classical text that influenced modern Liberalism of the nineteenth century. The question he was struggling with is, when the government can legitimately restrict your freedom by imposing and enforcing laws. Always, never, only sometime? The legitimate way of proposing this question might be: what is the proper scope of criminal law in a just society? Mill offer a well-known and quit simple answer, if your action harm someone else, then the government can legitimately step in and stop you from doing so or punishing you if you do but only if that said action harm someone else or about to harm someone. If the action by a single person only harm that single person, then
• General Washington and his men seek shelter at Valley Forge after Battle of White Marsh
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.
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...
After reading both articles, “Paternalism” by Dworkin and “On Liberty” by Mill, I believe that Dworkin is correct in explaining that some intervention is necessary under certain circumstances. I have come to this conclusion based on the fact that there do exist circumstances in which an individual is incapable of making a rational decision considering not only the well being of himself, but also the well being of other members of society. Also, the argument that the protection of the individual committing the action in question is not reason enough to interfere with the action is ludicrous in that one of our governments main reasons for existence is to protect the members of our society. This protection includes protection from ourselves at times when we are unable to rationally decide what is in our best interests. This essay will consist of an examination of this controversy as well as an application of my proposed conclusion.
John Locke (1632-1704) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) are two important thinkers of liberty in modern political thought. They have revolutionized the idea of human freedom at their time and have influenced many political thinkers afterwards. Although their important book on human freedom, John Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government (1689) and John Mill’s On Liberty (1859), are separated 170 years, some scholars thinks that they are belonging to the same conceptual tradition, English Liberalism. In this essay, I will elaborate John Locke and John Stuart Mill view on human freedom and try to find the difference between their concept of human freedom despite their similar liberal tradition background.
Meaning that a state or an individual can limit another person’s liberty in an effort to protect the person from self-harm, since it justifies the restricting of liberty to engage in actions that threaten imminent harm to others. As utilitarianism, Mill tries to find the best possible outcome for the greatest number of
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.
My thoughts and feelings on Mill vary, but I’d like to share my negative opinion towards the principle and hope to put it in a different perspective. The harm principle was published in Mill’s work, Of Liberty, in 1859. He states, “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 (978).” This means that government is not able to control peoples’ actions unless they are causing harm to other individuals.
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.
I chose to write about the Statue of Liberty. The Statue of Liberty serves as a symbolic fixture of the principles America was founded on. She represents freedom, liberty, and opportunity. The location of the Statue of Liberty is an amazing feat in itself, it is right in the middle of a very wide and a very deep Hudson river, and at the time it was brought there, with the limited technology, was amazing. Adding to the location, The State of Liberty as everyone knows is right next to the old customs ports where thousands of hungry, and poor immigrants fresh off the boat would pass through looking for a better life. The fact that Liberty is a woman is an ingenious idea because a woman tends to be more sympathetic and willing to help, if Liberty was a man the statue would seem more cold, stiff, and even militant. Throughout history statues have been built to represent a great moment but the Statue of Liberty was build to symbolize a great idea and country. At that time in history people were flocking to America because they were either being persecuted in their home countries or they were just disappointed at the status of their lives and wanted to come to “the land of opportunity” to start a new life.
The ultimate cause of justice when it comes to speech is to have unlimited freedom in expression. According to Mill, Liberty and Discussion should never be suppressed unless under coercion. "Suppose that government is entirely at one with the people and never thinks of exerting any power of coercion unless in agreement with what it conceives to be their voice. But I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves or by their government. The power itself is illegitimate. The best government has no more title to it than the worst. It is as noxious, or more noxious, when exe...
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.
Nonetheless, negative freedom does not mean that individuals should have absolute and unrestricted freedom. Classical liberals, such as J.S. Mill, believe that if freedom is unlimited it can lead to “license”, namely the right to harm others or to infringe their “natural” rights to “life, liberty and property”. In this way, Classical Liberals often support minimal restrictions on the individual so as to prevent individuals from inflicting harm upon each other. However, it should be borne in mind that Classical Liberals do not accept any constraints upon the individual that prevent him from damaging himself, physically or mentally, since the individual still remains sovereign. Such a view of freedom means that classical liberals generally advocate the establishment of a minimal or “nightwatch” state, whose role is limited to the protection of individuals from other individuals.