Who Is John Stuart Mill's Argument

452 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: Critique of john stuart mill

John Stuart Mill discusses in his essay On Liberty, whether or not an authority should be able to limit another beings expression of their own opinion. The essay is centered on liberty, and transfers into Mills opinion on freedom of expression and speech. Mill argues that “if all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind” (Mill 20). This argument parallels Thrasymachus’ argument in Plato’s The Republic, because Mill appears to be arguing that the stronger group is allowed to limit the expression of the weaker group, much where Thrasymachus believes justice is the advantage of the stronger. Mill believes that the Harm Principle must protect people from some expressions, but not though. While thought is personal, and only affects oneself, expression of those thoughts can occasionally affect others. Because expression can harm others, Mill believes that under the Harm Principle, it can be regulated. Mill does eventually consider, however, that “the …show more content…

He explains that it is not harmful to suggest that a corn dealer is starving the poor when it is written in the news, but that it is harmful when that sentiment is expressed in front of an angry mob outside of the corn dealer’s home. An angry mob outside of the corn dealers home could presently cause harm to the corn dealer, Mill explains, and that this expression “such as to constitute…a positive instigation to some mischievous act” (Mill 66) and thus the corn dealer is in danger. This example provides Mills opinion on what expressions should be permitted or limited. Mill believes that only if an expression puts a being in present danger should it be limited, and that it depends on the medium of expression as to whether or not it is

Show More
Related

  • Affirmative Action Case Study

    1133 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Utilitarianism and Morality in John Stuart Mill´s Essay

    1012 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Public Education Revealed In John Stuart Mill's On Liberty

    762 Words  | 2 Pages

    In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill speaks on matters concerning the “struggle between authority and liberty” and determining how the government should be balanced with the will of the common people. To aid these balances, Mill lays out indisputable freedoms for everyone including freedoms of thought and speech. He stresses that these freedoms are justified as long as they abstain from harm onto other people, but words have been known to hurt or offend. Hateful and unpopular thoughts can be ignored by common people just as they can say and believe whatever they wish to, but in the creation of laws that do affect everyone, leaders cannot discriminate against hearing any sort of opinion because doing so would increase the possibility of tyranny against a minority of any kind Mill wants to prevent. Every single opinion, no matter how unpopular, deserves to be heard by people of power, for even a thought of the unpopular or the minority could provide a shred of truth when leaders make decisions to better a majority of lives.

    Read More

  • Utilitarianism In John Stuart Mill

    1161 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Philosophy: John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism

    1314 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mill and Utilitarianism

    1321 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Comparing John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    2030 Words  | 5 Pages

    ...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.

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mill and Suicide

    1343 Words  | 3 Pages

    One of the largest influences on modern American political philosophy, John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty argues that society and the government is too stringent regarding people’s behavior. These strict expectations, he claims, limits individualism and genius, both vital to humanity’s progress (62). To rectify this, Mill believes that as long as one’s behavior doesn’t pose any direct threat to another, it should not be limited. While society may not approve of a member’s actions, it shouldn’t attempt to interfere or use social methods of conditioning behavior such as embarrassment (77). Mill anticipates some criticism by admitting that all actions affect others to some degree. In the example he gives in his book, a man may be prone to extravagant spending and is therefore unable to provide for his family or pay off his debts. This man may be punished, though not for the spending; rather, he should be punished for neglecting his familial and financial obligations (79). While Mill seems to have made many valid arguments, they are potentially quite problematic.

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mill Research Paper

    1178 Words  | 3 Pages

    Mill states the that intention of On Liberty is to highlight “the importance, to man and society of a large variety in types of character, and of giving full freedom to human nature to expand itself in innumerable and conflicting directions” (Autobiography). Further, Mill defines the purpose of On Liberty within the essay itself, stating, “The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle… 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” (On Liberty). For Mill, this independence is a crucial aspect of a thriving society, and this independence must be offered to all members of society. Ultimately, Mill states that no individual’s rights, no matter the gender, should be hindered, unless their actions prove to be harmful to another individual. According to Karen Zivi in her periodical “Cultivating Character: John Stuart Mill and the Subject of Rights”, “a rights claim is valid… if it contributes to individual and social well-being, and… in exercising that right, [one avoids] doing harm to others” (51). Similar notions toward individualism and liberty are portrayed on other examples of Mill’s

    Read More

  • The Harm Principle In John Stuart Mill's On Liberty

    726 Words  | 2 Pages

    In “On Liberty” John Stuart Mill believes that the government should not be able to stop someone from doing an act that harms no one other than themselves this is called the harm principle. He states that the governing party may reason with the one who may be making a decision that may bring harm to themselves but they should not be able to give him a punishment if he does whatever they are opposed to as long as it does not bring harm to others. In this essay I will be agreeing with Mill but with a few exceptions.

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mills On Liberty Analysis

    654 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle

    974 Words  | 2 Pages

    He also states that if you are causing harm to yourself, the government shall not involve themselves. Different forms of harm are applicable, such as physical harm, property damage, and emotional harm. Mill also explains that harm, in whatever form to others, can be the result of an action or the result of inaction. Both of these are a violation of the harm principle and the government has the right to step in; it does not matter whether harm was caused by the result of your action or inaction to the situation. The harm principle’s purpose is to be able to only let government interfere with human society when one is causing harm to another, therefore limiting government control....

    Read More

  • The Multifaceted Nature of Justice

    1071 Words  | 3 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • A Critical Analysis of John Stuart Mill’s "On Liberty"

    1403 Words  | 3 Pages

    Complete free exercise of will inhibits individual and societal freedom. According to Mill, one may act as one chooses unless one is inflicting harm onto others. He argues that one is free to behave “according to his own inclination and judgment in things which concern himself” as long as “he refrains from molesting” (64). The problem arises in the freedom allowed to the individual performing the potentially dangerous act. People are often blinded by the situation in which they are in and by their personal motives which drive them to act. Humans, by nature, have faults and vices that are potentially harmful. It is the responsibility of society to anticipate harm, whether to oneself or to others. Once dangerous patterns and habits are recognized it is imperative to anticipate and prevent injury from reoccurring. To allow any individual to be inflicted harm forces citizens to lose tr...

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mill on Individual Liberty

    2361 Words  | 5 Pages

    However, Mill asserts an important caveat; 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. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant' .

    Read More

More about Who Is John Stuart Mill's Argument

Open Document