Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
John stuart mill and immanuel kant enlightenment
John stuart mill the enlightenment
John stuart mill and immanuel kant enlightenment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: John stuart mill and immanuel kant enlightenment
Prince Clemons von Metternich was the Chief Minister of the Habsburg monarchy who was a conservative and against enlightenment. After the fall of Napoleon, Metternich worked to restore the European balance of power and to overturn revolutionary movements. After the revolutions, he used conservative ideals too rebuild Europe. Metternich, a leading advocate for conservatism says “ …passions are let loose, and league together to overthrow everything which society respects as the basis of its existence; religion, public morality, laws, customs, rights, and duties, are all attacked , confounded, overthrown or called into question”(Metternich, qtd. In Swanson, 25). Metternich is describing the uselessness and the mindset of the people involved in the revolution. These kinds of attitudes expressed by Metternich would result in more restrictive policies. Metternich believed the source of evil was presumption. …show more content…
He described presumption as “the natural effect of the rapid progression of the human mind towards the perfecting of so many things” (Metternich, qtd. In Swanson, 26). On the other hand, there is John Stuart Mill who was a liberal.
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
watched. However, Mill asserts an important forewarning; 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.”(Mills, In Swanson, 33).
...s for more liberal reforms, helping the conservatives. This also helped show how paranoid the government was of potential rebellion against them and how pragmatic they were. Then throughout 1848, there was a multitude of rebellions and when the dust settled it seemed as if the Austrian government was going to lose it was able to get back up and fight back with the help of the Russians and get back control for the conservatives. By the end of 1851 Austria was able to remain a strong conservative dual monarchy, a concession made to appease the Magyars, but their king still had to report to the Austrian king. Throughout 1815-1851 there were many demands for more liberal reforms and strong opponents of conservatism, but by the end on 1851 Austria, Prussia, and France were still some of the few nations where conservatism was able to achieve its goals and stay in power.
The French people were quick to blame the government for all the misfortune they possess, yet ignored the potential evil or crisis the social body was heading towards within themselves. Because of the rapid sequence of horrific events in the beginning of the French revolution, it prevented the subversive principles to be spread passes the frontiers of France, and the wars of conquest which succeeded them gave to the public mind a direction little favorable to revolutionary principles (2). French men have disgraced the religion by ‘attacking with a steady and systematic animosity, and all it is there that the weapon of ridicule has been used with the most ease and success (2). Metternich was not in support of the French
When one looks at France after Napoleon’s reign, it is clear that he had brought much longed for order and stability. He had also established institutions that embodied the main principles of the revolution. However, it is also evident that many of his policies directly contradict those same principles. Was Napoleon betraying the same revolution that gave him power, or was he merely a pragmatist, who recognised that to consolidate the achievements of the revolution he needed to sacrifice some of those principles? Firstly, in order to determine whether Bonaparte betrayed the revolution, it is necessary to define what one means by “the revolution”.
Spielvogel states, “To many Europeans it proved that the liberal political ideas of the Enlightenment were not the vapid utterances of intellectuals. The premises of the Enlightenment seemed confirmed; a new age and a better world would be achieved.” ( Spielvogel 567). The Revolution embodied the living aspect of the Enlightenment Ideals in Western European minds. They saw what the ideals looked like in action, and they started to build upon that idea to implement in their own lives.
...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.
The theories of John Stewart Mill and Karl Marx, although vastly different, share the main idea of utilitarianism in the most basic sense. Utilitarianism promotes the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Both philosophers believed that the people should be empowered when it came to the governing of society, and that the greatest threat to society is oppression.
The enlightenment was a time of great learning throughout Europe during the eighteenth century. Although the period is significant for scientific and other scholastic advancements, it is most important because it allowed for the opening of great minds—such as that of Napoleon Bonaparte. Shortly after this enlightenment made its way through Europe, revolution and civil war ripped through France between 1879 and 1899. The unrest of the time called for a strong ruler. A man/woman with an open mind and an enlightened soul. France needed a child of the enlightenment to sew its tattered flag. Napoleon Bonaparte was a child of the enlightenment. This was displayed in both his attitudes and policies as a result of enlightened religious ideas, political genius, and social reforms.
Arguably England’s most influential philosopher of the 19th century was none other than John Stuart Mill, a main proponent to utilitarianism — an ethical theory placing emphasis on the consequences of our actions. The ultimate goal of utilitarianism is to provide a scientific approach to decision making, while simultaneously seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. As a young woman pondering the right course of action for my future, Mill’s contributions to utilitarianism are both practical and intriguing to someone in my situation.
The French Revolution was a period of upheaval in France, during which the French governmental structure and Catholic clergy underwent a large change due to Enlightenment ideas. The commoners of France began to revolt after hearing the ideas of famous philosophes like Voltaire. Voltaire was a deist who believed that the Catholic Church and its doctrines were not to be trusted since they used propoganda to get followers rather than the actual religion. He believed it was unfair that there wasn’t any religious freedom since you were expected to be a Catholic. He spoke openly about this, which of course got him into a lot of trouble. Nevertheless, the French commoners took his word into thought and decided to act upon what he said by revolting against the church. Voltaire’s ideas also critized royal absolutism because they had, in his opinion, too much power. He favored an elightened absolutist, which is an absolutist who adopts Enlightenment ideas. Once again, the French commoners took this to heart and agreed with Voltaire that the French government was too ...
MIll presents a form of hedonism that is quite contrary to its usual connotation. His "utilitarianism" is a principle stating that every person desires more happiness than pain and that actions are moral if they are condusive to this desire. Utilitarianism is empircally based, or centered around observation. Rather than seeking pleasure in any form, Mill contends that some pleasures are greater than others. He believes that, as humans, we are capable of intellectual pleasures rather than simple animal pleasures, and that these intellectual pleasure provide much more quality, which is far superior to quanity. Thus need a way to discern between which is more worthwhile. According to Mill, the only reasonable way to do this is to look at the
While, after reading the above two quotations, it may appear that Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill take seemingly opposing views on the proper relationship between an individual and his or her community, a closer reading of the texts of Marx and Mill reveals that both Marx and Mill articulate a much more nuanced view on the ideal relationship between man and his society. By first analyzing Mill's views on the proper relationship between an individual and his community and then moving on to address Marx's views on the subject, this essay will argue that while Mill leaves the individual sovereign over his own actions, he does not deny the existence of obligations or duty to others. Marx, on the other hand, while trumpeting the ideals of communism, never looses sight of the importance of the personal development of man as an individual. Furthermore, Marx's view on the relationship between man and his community exists in an entirely different paradigm than that of Mill's. Mill views his "political emancipation" of man entirely within the context of previous human experience. Marx, however, longs for "human emancipation" and, with his material...
Fitzpatrick, J. R. (2006). John Stuart Mill's political philosophy: Balancing freedom and the collective good. London [u.a.: Continuum.
...be look at and overcome. The three characteristics he stated for the cause of oppression towards women were correct in my opinion. I do feel that society is the greatest cause and influence on the treatment of women and the following factors, education and marriage, are affected. Today, I believe that Mill would be really impressed how women today are equally treated in terms of respect, jobs, education and the number of rights we have. As for the government, I think he would be alright with it because the government does focus on the well-being and protection of the nation. In conclusion, Charles-Louis de Secondat et de Montesquieu and John Stuart Mill both discussed the ideas of the structure and power of the government. They believed that despotism was a negative way to control a group of people even though it worked and that people can only be controlled by fear.
In order to understand John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism we must first understand his history and motives in writing the series of essays. Mill had many influencers most notably his father James Mill and the father of Utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham. James grew up poor but was influenced by his mother, who had high hopes for the formerly named Milne family, and educated himself becoming a preacher and then executive in the East India Company. James was a proponent of empiricism and believed in John Locke’s idea of man being born as a blank slate. James did not send his son John to school, teaching him rigorously from the early age of three. Despite his father’s emphasis on the blank slate, Mill was criticized for being a manufactured man because
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.