One of the fundamental concerns of social and political philosophy has been the topic of what levels of restrictions if any, should be placed on the liberty of a nations inhabitants. Unless one does not value the importance of liberty, we must accept that there is some level of freedom that the state must accord to its citizens. One of the roles of political philosophy is to come up with an extensive theory to determine the limits of these actions. In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill rejects any efforts to restrict peoples opinions and conduct through either legal force or social pressure (Mill, 1859, chapt. 1).
Discussion
Mill illustrates the importance of liberty from a utilitarian perspective. The essay attempts to demonstrate the benefits of liberty on individuals and society as a whole and precisely connects liberty to the ability to move forward, hence keeping away from social stagnation. Liberty of opinion is important for two reasons: the less popular opinion may be right and if this opinion is not right, rejecting it will give chance for people to comprehend their own opinions. Liberty of action is important for similar reasons. The nonconformist may be right, or he may have a mode of life that goes well with him, if not everybody. Furthermore, the nonconformist challenges social norms thereby bringing progress to the society.
Mill makes his points through five chapters. Chapter 1 provides a concise outlook on the meaning of liberty. He also introduces the essential argument in advocating for liberty as long as it does not harm others. Chapters 2 and 3 illustrate the importance of liberty and other peoples views while the fourth chapter discusses the acceptable level of authority that should be placed over a person. The final chapter looks at specific examples and applications of his earlier arguments (Mill, 1859, chapt. 5).
In his defense of liberty, Mill asserts that the only grounds under which coercion can be used is when one exposes some risk to those around him. However, such an action might be vain- the coercion might be in vain, or too costly, or infringe on an individuals privacy- and this brings it into scrutiny within the span of legitimate state power. There is no other reason than to justify coercion. A persons actions cannot be restrained because they are wrong or unethical, as long as he does not harm others. In a similar argument, a persons liberty cannot be denied just because his actions are injurious to him; paternalism is not justifiable. He writes 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 sufficient warrant (Mill, 1859, chapt. 1).
Conclusion
Despite Mills attempts at presenting the importance of liberty to his readers, he fails to give the precise limits of liberty that should be accorded to a citizen. Besides, he focuses too much on the individual and does not give a useful difference between the actions that are injurious to oneself and those that can bring injury to others. However, the essay does give strong support for nonconformists as beneficial to society, and a similar reminder that no one can be totally sure that his or her way of life is ideal or is the only way.
References
Mill, J. S. On Liberty. (1859). London: John W. Parker and Son.
Utilitarianism is a normative theory in the field of philosophy, which claims that a suitable course of action maximizes overall happiness (Stokes 18). Utilitarian theory is concerned about the consequences of an action. However, it is unclear whether the consequences are imagined or real.
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are the two main supporters of the theory. Bentham argues that the greatest number of people should achieve happiness if utilitarianism is to be achieved in society. Under all circumstances, people should avoid evil and always strive to do the right thing in society. To Bentham, the act of doing right and avoiding evil is referred to as the fundamental axiom (Bentham 31).
According to Bentham, nature places individuals under the governance of either pain or happiness. Therefore, it is upon human beings to determine their destinies. The cost of happiness or pain is usually measured in terms of intensity, period, certainty, and solitude of an event or action. Apart from measuring the intensity of an act, it is also important to consider the number of people affected by an action or event.
Stuart Mill concurs with Benthams views that individuals have the freedom to select what is right for them. For Mill, an individual can decide to choose a pleasure that does not satisfy his needs fully. However, Mill notes that no individual can accept to lower his or her dignity to enjoy high pleasures (Mill 56). In particular, he suggests that no human being can accept to be put in the same category as beasts.
Since Tasha is in a position to help the local poor, she should not temper with the prices of goods. Utilitarianism suggests that an individual should always strive to do the right thing in the right way. If Tasha increases the prices of goods, few people will be able to acquire them.
Nonetheless, the locals cannot do without winter clothes because of the bad weather. According to Bentham, Tasha will be going against the cardinal rule, which he referred to as the fundamental axiom. Increasing the prices of winter clothes is an act that does not aim at bringing happiness to the majority.
Happiness is achieved when the needs of the majority in society are met. For the case of Tasha, her act of tripling the prices of products will simply bring individual happiness. This is not what utilitarianism promotes. To Stuart Mill, Tasha will have lowered her dignity to the level equivalent to that of a beast. In real sense, an individual should not allow his or her status to be lowered only to achieve high pleasures.
Moore notes that other aspects, such as love and knowledge, influence happiness (Moore 19). Therefore, Tasha should consider the problems facing the locals before increasing the prices of winter clothes. In the first place, people might have lost their resources during the catastrophe. This means that they might not be having enough money to acquire the basic products. However, they will have to look for little cash since their happiness depends on the acquisition of winter clothes.
Without the winter clothes, the locals would not make it in life. Since Tasha is a knowledgeable person, she should know that people are suffering. Her love for members of society should not vanish for the sake of making abnormal profits. Tasha will be perceived as somebody with the interest of the majority at heart if she charges people normal prices. Consequently, members of society will collectively achieve high pleasures.
Works Cited
Bentham, Jeremy. The Works of Jeremy Bentham: Published under the Superintendence of His Executor, John Bowring, Volume 1. New York: Adamant Media Corporation, 2001. Print.
Mill, Stuart. A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive (Classic Reprint). New York: Forgotten Books, 2011. Print.
Moore, George. Ethics. London: Williams and Norgate, 1912. Print.
Stokes, Eric. The English Utilitarian and India. London: Clarendon Press, 1963. Print.
John Stuart Mill was a famous English philosopher. Mill contributed a lot to political economy, political theory, and social theory. Most of Mills ideas have reshaped peoples ideas regarding politics, justice, economics, and happiness.
Capaldi (21) writes that his influence came from his father and Jeremy Bentham. As a child, his father encouraged him to study various works by great philosophers and thinkers such as Plato.
Mill eventually became one of the greatest philosophers of the 19th century. This paper presents a short biography of the philosopher and goes further to discuss some of his outstanding ideas and philosophical views.
Mills Short Biography
John Stuart Mill is definitely one of the famous philosophers of the modern era. Mill was born on 20 May 1806 in Britain. He was born to James Mill, a great historian, philosopher, and economist. By the age of 12, Mill had studied works of great philosophers such as Plato. He had also familiarized himself with subjects such as algebra. Mills father shielded him from children of his age (Capaldi 16).
As a scholar, Stuart Mill wrote extensively on various subjects including morality and politics. He also served as a Member of Parliament (MP) for Westminster. He was the first person to call for equality by giving women rights to vote.
During his life, Mill wrote many works in support of utilitarianism, women rights, and liberty (Capaldi 86). He also contributed widely to political and social theories. Mill was an atheist. He taught different scholars such as Bertrand Russell. The philosopher died in Avignon, France, on 8 May 1873. Today he remains a great figure in modern philosophy.
John Stuart Mills Philosophical Ideas
Stuart Mill was definitely an influential philosopher of the 19th century. Some of the outstanding ideas by Stuart Mill appear in his masterpiece On Liberty . In the work, Mill examines the question of liberty and the power of the society. According to Mill, individuals in the society are permitted to harm themselves (Capaldi 72). This is acceptable only if the individuals do not harm other people.
However, there is need to prevent individuals from damaging property or themselves. This is necessary because such individuals do not live in isolation . This establishes what Mill calls the harm principle . According to the principle, any kind of harm to property and individuals might eventually affect the welfare of the society.
Mill goes further to say that individuals should be free and do whatever they want unless they potentially harm other people in the society (Mill 37).
This means that individuals have the right to make decisions that will affect their wellbeing. Governments should intervene in order to protect the wider society from harmful persons. Such philosophical ideas have played a significant role towards the formation of many societies today.
The other philosophical idea by the philosopher occurs in his essay Utilitarianism . In the essay, Stuart Mill supports utilitarianism as an important moral theory. He also responds to most of the misinterpretations associated with utilitarianism.
According to Mill, utility theory is based on the rule that actions should be accepted if they promote happiness (Mill 43). He also suggests that actions are wrong if they result in unhappiness or pain. To support the theory, Mill states that peoples expectations in life are essential aspects of happiness.
Mill believes the society should embrace the theory of utilitarianism because it governs the ethical aspects of its people. With the theory, people will embrace the best actions because they result in happiness and not sorrow. It becomes evident from these ideas that happiness should be the basis of human ethics and morality.
Mill believes every person in the universe desires happiness than anything else (Capaldi 98). It is agreeable that different sentiments such as that of Justice are founded on the utility theory. Mill encourages people to support human rights because they provide the necessary framework towards greater happiness.
The utilitarian theory has encountered criticism from great thinkers and scholars. For instance, critics suggest that the theory fails to provide the necessary ideas and frameworks to protect human liberties and rights. As well, some critics argue that the theory cannot be a standard measure for all things.
Faced with such criticism, Mills essay presents new answers thus making it easier for people to understand the foundations of utilitarianism (Honer et al. 65). Stuart Mill offers a classical connection between human utility and the concept of justice. This makes it easier for the reader to understand that human justice is developed from happiness.
John Stuart Mill also presents his views on economic philosophy. Although he embraces the idea of free markets , Mill accepts the presence of economic interventions (Mill 83). However, Mill believes there should be significant utilitarianism ideas for free markets to exist.
As well, Mill addresses the issue of slavery and human liberty. Mill is against slavery because it does not promote equality or happiness. Mill also supports women rights and happiness. This explains why many people consider Mill a feminist (Capaldi 103).
In most of his works and ideas, Stuart Mill criticizes women subjugation and oppression. According to the philosopher, oppression of females is a major obstacle affecting the modern society.
John Mill also presents essential ideas regarding the issue of politics and democracy. In his work Considerations on Representative Government , Mill believes that leaders should be competent in order to guide their citizens.
As well, citizens should be equally involved in government matters (Capaldi 65). This explains why he supports plural voting because it can be one of the best steps to democracy. John Mill was also a strong supporter of freedom of speech (Mill 64). By so doing, Mill believes people should be free to communicate in order to discover the truth.
This is the best way to increase human knowledge. The other important thing to understand is that Mill was once an elected government official, something that made it easier for him to exercise his political theories and philosophies.
Conclusion
From the above discussion, it is agreeable that John Mill Stuart is an important philosopher in the modern world. Mill presents useful philosophical ideas that have helped transform the universe. For instance, Mill examines the question of liberty and power in the society. According to the philosopher, individuals in the society are permitted to harm themselves.
However, this is only acceptable if the individuals do not harm others. As well, Mills utilitarian theory supports actions that result in happiness. He also supports equality, freedom of speech, and rights of women. These philosophical ideas have played a significant role towards the establishment of societies and governments today.
Works Cited
Capaldi, Nicholas. John Stuart Mill: A Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Print.
Honer, Stanley, et al. Invitation to Philosophy: Issues and Options. Cengage: Cengage Learning, 2005. Print.
Mill, John Stuart. Remarks on Benthams Philosophy. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2001. Print.
John Stuart Mill argues that actions should be solely guided by the Greatest Happiness Principle (9). I find Mills argument very convincing. In this essay, I will first briefly summarize the argument. Next, I will discuss an objection that one could possibly raise to it. Then I will reveal a serious hidden flaw in the objection. Finally, I will consider a possible rejoinder to my criticism and explain why it fails.
To the best of my knowledge, the most powerful argument made by Mill for Utilitarianism runs as follows:
Happiness is the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain.
Unhappiness is the presence of pain and the absence of pleasure.
Actions are right in if they produce or promote happiness.
Actions are wrong if they produce the opposite of happiness.
Pleasure/happiness and freedom from pain are the main goals that every man seeks to achieve.
The Utilitarian standard is aimed at promoting the greatest happiness for everyone.
Therefore, everything that is desirable should be done for the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain for everyone (from 5 and 6) (Mill 10).
The argument is valid given that all premises are true. One must necessarily arrive at the conclusion that all desirable actions should be done for the promotion of the greatest good if they accept Mills premises. I think this argument is good. However, some people might regard that the sixth premise is problematic. They might even argue that it is false.
For instance, the opponents of this claim might say that the term everyone is loosely used, and we cannot determine whose happiness is to be promoted. There are several conceptions of happiness and goodness that different people subscribe to, thus it is difficult and almost impossible to promote the happiness of everyone. This seems to be a formula for chaos as it makes the Utilitarian ensure the conditions with which everyone is satisfied, in order to achieve the greatest happiness.
Plausible as the objection sounds, it cannot stand a careful analysis. The promotion of the good for everyone does not have to necessarily entail an active imposition of what is thought to be good for some people onto everyone. This would undermine the purpose of the principle itself.
The principles of Utilitarianism and greatest happiness are egalitarian in nature; therefore, they seek to equally promote the happiness of everyone. From a theoretical point of view, this seems difficult to achieve, but in practical scenarios, Utilitarianism works well. Utilitarianism is the foundation of political democracy which is commonly seen as an ideal means of governance.
However, it is possible that my opponents would make the following rejoinder. Following the principles of Utilitarianism might curtail the freedom of will of the few, thus Utilitarianism does not achieve its goal of reaching the greatest happiness. My reply to the objection above is that Utilitarianism is a pragmatic principle, and as such, it does not guarantee utopia (Miller 59).
Various individuals have varied interests and conception of happiness, thus it is not practical to try to fulfill all the desires of all the people. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory therefore it is mainly focused on the ends, not the means. It would be wrong to assume that the intended consequence of Utilitarianism is to curtail the freedom or happiness of the few as that would miss the point.
The consequence of following Utilitarian principle in democracy, for instance is that the greatest happiness is achieved for the greatest number of people. Such a consequence is the only thing that matters, thus one would be wrong in deducing an intention from a consequence (Brink 69).
The point is that the consequence of promoting the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people has the unwanted effect of not fulfilling the happiness of the minority. Furthermore, following the egalitarian principles contained in Utilitarianism would mean that a democratic government should make an environment that is conducive for the happiness of all.
This would mean that there would be nondiscrimination as everyones happiness counts equally so the greatest happiness would be achieved by catering for every persons needs.
Mill clarifies that the moral agent who follows Utilitarianism ought to act in such a way that they promote the greatest amount of happiness altogether and not just the happiness of the agent (32). This principle would preclude someone acting on the principles of Utilitarianism from acting in a selfish and self-serving manner.
It is useful to further clarify that Utilitarianism gives one both the positive and the negative duty (West 196), i.e. the promotion of happiness and the prevention of pain. One is bound, therefore, to pursue his/her happiness so far as it does not cause others pain. There are very few instances in the pragmatic world in which people with opposing desires meet halfway and both end up happy.
However, using the greatest happiness principle seems to have a tolerably better outcome for such an impasse. It is the duty of the moral agent who solves the dispute between the two opposing parties not only to follow the course of action that results in the greatest happiness, but also to ensure that its effects cause the least pain. This is the ideal situation in Utilitarianism.
The objection presented is, therefore, aptly dealt with by showing that the Utilitarian has no intention in causing pain to the minority. Pain is practically inevitable therefore it is the duty of the Utilitarian to ensure as little pain as possible.
In conclusion, Mill presents a good theory that guides actions at both the individual and the societal levels. The theory is considered wrong in light of some morally questionable acts like torture, but it is a strong claim when it comes to dealing with moral dilemmas at a societal level.
In The Subjection of Women, John Stuart Mill argues for the emancipation of marginalized women for both the benefit of the society and the personal gain of the woman. About this, one can best understand Mills essay best, not considering it as a philosophical treatise, but a call for the enhancement of womens rights. What strikes most in this particular essay and captures the attention of most readers is Mills use of clarity and conciseness in his work.
This can be best seen in his support statements such as, The principle which regulates the existing social relations between the two sexes the legal subordination of one sex to the other is wrong in itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement; and&It ought to be replaced by a principle of perfect equality, admitting no power or privilege on the one side, or disability on the other (Mill 1). Mill as it not the case with most other writers engaged in serious discourses employs a sense of humor in his work, which breaks the monotony of having to read serious stuff all the time without having anything to laugh at.
He argues that If it is inferred merely because a womans bodily frame generally is of fewer dimensions than a mans, this criterion would lead to strange consequences. A tall and large-boned man must on this showing be wonderfully superior in intelligence to a small man, and an elephant or a whale must prodigiously excel mankind (Mill 3). This gives the reader a break from the serious reading of this article and a chance to engage his imagination to create a connection between Mills arguments and reality. This is indeed an essay of timeless essence.
Works Cited
Mill, Stuart. The Subjection of Women. London: Longmans Publishers, 1869.
What does liberty mean, and what it’s like to be a liberal. The word ‘liberal’ originated from the Latin dictionary and it means free. Our nation’s First Amendment in the Constitution of the United States of America and in the Bill of Rights, is freedom of speech and in the First Amendment American citizens have the freedom to choose what religion they wish to practice, they have the freedom to speak their opinion without fear, and the press have their freedom to be practiced as well without agitation.
Liberals are those that strongly follow the First Amendment and support it. While conservatives are against it, for instance, the conservatives believe that religion should be practiced in school, abortion and same-sex marriage should be considered and not allowed, and etc. while liberals believe it’s a personal choice and everyone has their freedom to choose what to do or what to practice and no government should oppose their belief or credence upon the citizens. However, John Mill presented the liberty term and brought it up into the constitution, yet he still placed limits by declaring and speaking about the harm principle, which is really important for us to understand and to comprehend. There are those that believe in the First Amendment but don’t understand how to practice it in the right way and they may act recklessly without consideration and consciousness. You do have the right to practice your freedom and do whatever you wish to do, as long as you are not harming others and putting other lives in danger for example, you have the right to drink, smoke without anyone interfering or bothering you. it’s true you are harming yourself and health, but the government or the law won’t interfere, however, if you are driving behind the wheels at high speed and endangering others’ lives then the law will get involved and enforce their punishment.
The main idea of opportunity and freedom has changed dramatically as time progresses. In many cases, the type of ruler changed from a dictatorship to an elected power with the use of the majority rule system. Minorities are often disenfranchised in the general public and lose their power. For example, throughout history, the mistreatment of African Americans has shown how one group of people can be victimized by a changing political system. Therefore, in a broader set of things, we may say that society is the oppressor who has imposed on the people their rules and customs.
John Stuart Mill was famously known for writing, three books that touched history and left a remark on this nation to be practice and used since 19th century, his books and work is still practiced by the government, society, and studied by students in colleges and universities. One of the books he wrote was ‘On Liberty’ where he spoke about what limit or extend society should have in order to ensure power over the individual. So, Mill strongly believes in liberalism and that everyone should be free to do whatever an individual want and no one should hold them accountable for anything they say, do or want. Unless there are issues that prevent them from doing so or holds them from practicing their freedom nonetheless it needs to investigate.
Therefore, by his belief of liberalism, he cleared it out by writing the two maxims of liberalism. The first maxim where he speaks about that society has no power or control into telling a civilian what to do, so basically everyone is free unless the second maxim interferes, and the civilian chooses to harm others by their action, that’s when society will take its place and hold you accountable. An individual can extensively drink alcohol, they are hurting themselves, however, they are not hurting others so they will not be punished, and they will not be questioned. Although, if they decide to drink and drive and risk other lives in danger because their care of others’ life is not very important to them, than their understanding of freedom and liberty is not in the right place and they can’t exercise freedom nevertheless defend themselves with it.
‘Utilitarianism’ is the second book that was written by John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism falls in the umbrella of morality; morality is the choice that an independent take either choosing a right or wrong choice. Morality plays a huge role in our society and in the term of utilitarianism action, it is what brings happiness and satisfaction to others and whatever brings suffering should be excluded. Therefore, the happier choice of action we espouse is the right action we chose according to utilitarianism any action that doesn’t bring happiness and bring suffering it will be considered morally wrong and a person before taking action his morality should play a role in the choices that he/she will take.
My thesis for utilitarianism is if we, for instance, combine the two terms of theory, the value of theory and the theory of right action we will obtain a positive right utilitarianism. Begging with value of theory, it is the valuable things that bring us joy and happiness to us such as money, family, materialistic it is indeed valuable and brings happiness, and the theory of right action is what gives out the most happiness. Both theories together they come out with utilitarianism. Keeping in mind that what will make the majority happy is the right action, so don’t worry if you took the wrong choice or you thought you have made the wrong choice, but if with that wrong choice you are saving other and the majority of other people and bringing happiness and less suffering than you have taken the right action. As claimed by to mill, there is no right or wrong action it, only shows by the effect that it will bring out. Therefore, according to Mill, utilitarianism relates to liberty by giving others the freedom of choice.
As John Mill points out, independence can be found in three gatherings: freedom of thought and belief, freedom of taste and desire (possibility to build one’s own life) and freedom to join like-minded people without hurting anyone else. The last of these forms opposes the strategy of the general public to ‘do what you are told to do’. One must be willing to express his opinion of anything and should never be ashamed to do so. It protects truth, and likewise, no one should stifle the view of anything ethically out of place by any other citizen. The evaluation’s general ubiquity doesn’t make it right, nor does it make it alright. The inquiry continues, as it stands, as to whether people with an adverse viewpoint can be allowed to follow them up without being outcasts from society or facing legal action.
Although society is dishonest, it is considered a sheltered part of it. Nevertheless, Mill suggests that as much as could reasonably be expected, a person should express his own feelings and escape from the standards of society. It should be acknowledged that his torpid insight is direct to him and to the people around him. That entity will begin to say what they put in inventory, or the effects will be serious, another person will step up and say something very similar and get recognition of it, and there will be no benefit at that point in apologizing for it.
Truly said, one must be a non-traditionalist in the view of John Mill. He should not find anything positive or negative because he depends on doing so. He would try to investigate himself because it’s just individual appreciation and comprehension. The interpretation of the target is the notion of a good or poor perspective. What might be of value to one person might be terrible to another. The right key is to follow the rights of a person as opposed to what is opposed to it. Likewise, within it, culture has set several traps for individuals. For example, by making a scene out of it, it makes everyone feel bad about their accomplishments. The similarity makes the individual weak and burns, causing him to lose his character throughout his time. The person who remains special when living in the general public is an exceptional individual.
The world usually whips the person with disdain and urgency in order to resist. As a consequence, those who judge should be avoided by men. On the off chance that an individual will figure out how to escape the harsh essences of the individuals around him, he will acquire expertise with the way to true happiness because, like the sweet essences of the vast number, the acrylic appearances have no thoughtful purpose, yet they are placed on as the pattern goes on and the wind blows. If one figures out how to understand these, the viciousness of the formed classes will be overcome by him. We are society’s decisions that shake our confidence and self-confidence. In general, therefore, individuals will be increasingly repetitive, respectful of past demonstrations and words; because the general public’s eyes have no other way to judge us than our past activities and languages.
In any case, why would living with one’s past second thoughts and feelings be a good idea? Why aren’t we developing as the world continues with time and progress? Assume that the person rejects himself, what are the consequences of that? Living with the memory of one’s history and rehashing something very similar again is an extremely foolish act. With time, one must move forward, repudiate oneself, and by investigating oneself adopt new things. One should never be embarrassed to negate oneself and should talk about one’s contemplations, as consistency is simply a matter of discernment. Talk with hard words now and tomorrow what you think, express what you think tomorrow, with no second thoughts, no matter how negative it may be. What you say today is that you are amazing and that you are a better person. Every exceptional person, like Newton, Pythagoras, Luther, Jesus, Muhammad they have been underestimated on their occasions and is now regarded as the defining moments of the greatest achievements at any given point.
Incredible people on their occasions are never respected. Their enormity provides what is to come regularly. The increasing entity is the universe’s focal point and is indistinguishably devoted to it by any other individual. A person should never bow down and ask for absolution, because his privilege may be unacceptable to others, and he should not be punished with it. A true man has a place where there is no other time and place and is the center of things. Nature is alive where it is. Each person has a tremendous amount of potential; however, by making themselves sufficient against each of the conditions they need to achieve their own structure. Caesar was conceived and the incomparable Roman Empire was given the establishment.
In any case, unique names or titles should not overwhelm one, rather they should work for it. One should look at the world as their canvas and paint it. It must be known that the world exists for itself, and only for itself. We should recognize that freedom is a valid source of truth and that it is the best way forward in everyday life. An extraordinary piece of craftsmanship, or any outstanding work of art, is looking for a person to come and translate. Nevertheless, in order to applaud our discernment, it does not order us to guide it and settle the case.
Socrates promised that the leader must have a piece of self-information and shrewdness and temperance in the majority rule structure. The ruler would become unreasonably degenerate without them. However, John Mill accepted that the monarch would speak out in support of the rights of those ruled in the framework of majority rules and that such a popular government will guarantee the independence of the conceivable.
John Mill never gave up on education he walked in the path of liberalism and made his point clear for this nation, he dedicated his time to leave a remark and make a difference in this world that will be remembered for generations and generations. John Mill was always into politics, yet that didn’t hold him back from falling in love in France and joining the parliament at the age of 17. If other nations understood liberty the way that John Mill, explained and followed his methodology and books, I believe the world would have been in much more peace, suffered less, and became more of a stable place. With this knowledge and fundamental of liberty, I as political student aiming to become an ambassador one day will try my best to pass on the study of John Mill to the real world and especially to the third world as it has become one of my goals in the future.
With the movement of time, the major idea of opportunity or freedom has changed hugely. In old occasions, freedom was considered as the autonomy from the mistreatment of a degenerate or unjustifiable ruler. In any case, with the triumph of the majority rules system, the job of ruler changed from ruler to the hireling of the country and subsequently, society transformed into the one thing everybody required freedom from. For example, the minorities in a general public consistently get their voices smothered from the dominant parts, either ethically or morally. For instance, the mistreatment of dark individuals given their skin shading. Additionally, in a more extensive set of things, we can say that society is the oppressor which has forced its conventions and customs on the people.
As a rule, the idea of freedom deciphers as the autonomy or opportunity from the standards of the general public. It can likewise be characterized as one’s will to escape from the confinements of the social classes and be one’s very own individual. One of the most well known and most-read works of John Stuart Mill on this point is ‘On Liberty’. Through this book, Mill voices the possibility of individual opportunity in the light of his ideas of history and the development of the possibility of opportunity.
In contemporary occasions, every individual has been dispensed his/her essential human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), made up of a few articles, has designated the essential rights to each person on the substance of the Earth. Article 19 of the UDHR marked as ‘Opportunity of Expression’ additionally reveals to us that each individual has a privilege to voice his feelings without the guilty pleasure of the individuals around him and this privilege can’t be confined in any circumstance. In any case, is this being polished or not is a striking inquiry? Since the freedom of the USA, the area of independence has been examined by many individuals yet it has never been actualized thusly.
“On the off chance that all humankind short one, were of one conclusion, and just a single individual was of the opposite feeling, humankind would be not any more defended in hushing that one individual, than he, on the off chance that he had the power, would be legitimized in quieting humankind” ― John Stuart Mill, ‘On Liberty’.
J.S. Mill says that a cutoff must be executed on the power or hold of society on a person. This is the main way that an individual can increase common freedom. Ralph Waldo Emerson, likewise an independent, directs in his exposition ‘Confidence’ that individual observation is a higher priority than this present reality as it can have an enormous effect. Each extraordinary individual in history has been investigated upon by the individuals of his time yet, later on, his name stayed on the planet as an imperative individual. At the point when Galileo gave the idea of round earth and sun being the focal point of the universe, he was exiled and killed by the individuals of his time. Correspondingly, Socrates was given hemlock because of his interpretation of majority rule government yet, later on, the establishments of extraordinary classes of cosmology and legislative issues were established on their works. Additionally, Plato and Milton, the authors of the best fictions at any point composed what their heart guided them to, not what the general public directed and that is the thing that made them extraordinary and surely understood consistently.
As indicated by J.S. Mill, freedom can be isolated into three gatherings: freedom of musings and supposition, freedom of tastes and interests which is the opportunity to design one’s very own life and the freedom of joining other similar individuals without harming any other individual. Every last one of these sorts dismisses the ‘do what you are advised to do’ approaches of the general public. One must be available to share his perspective about anything and ought to never feel embarrassed to do as such. It protects reality and likewise, nobody ought to stifle any other person’s perspective about anything as it is ethically off-base to do as such. The general ubiquity of an assessment doesn’t really make it right or the other way around. Be that as it may, the inquiry remains whether the individuals holding the disliked perspectives be permitted to follow up on them without being pariahs from society or confronting a lawful punishment.
Even though society is underhanded, being a piece of it is viewed as sheltered. Howbeit, Mill, and Emerson contend that an individual should voice his very own sentiments and escape from the standards of society however much as could reasonably be expected. One ought to accept that his torpid affirmation is directly for him and the individuals around him. Each individual must begin saying what they put stock in, or the consequences will be severe, another person will step up and state something very similar and get the acknowledgment for it, and there will be no advantage in apologizing over it at that point.
To be completely fruitful, in perspectives on J.S. Mill, one must be a non-traditionalist. He ought not consider anything positive or negative since it is relied upon him to do that. He should try and investigate it himself in light of the fact that these are simply singular recognitions and understandings. The idea of fortunate or unfortunate is a goal elucidation. What is beneficial for one individual could be awful for another. The main right is the thing is pursuing the constitution of an individual and the main awful is what is against it. Likewise, society has set numerous snares for the individuals in it. For instance, it makes everybody feel embarrassed about his own accomplishments by making a scene out of them. Emerson accepts that an individual ought to never require any optional confirmation of others around him and simply need their very own declaration to be genuinely upbeat. Similarity just makes an individual feeble and burns through his time by causing him to lose his character. An incredible individual is the person who continues his singularity while living in a general public.
For resistance, the world generally whips the individual with its disapproval. Henceforth a man should consistently realize how to recognize an acrid face. On the off chance that an individual figure out how to avoid the harsh essences of the individuals around him, he will gain proficiency with the way in to the genuine satisfaction since like the sweet essences of the huge number, the acrid appearances have no profound reason, yet are put on as the pattern goes on and the breeze blows. In the event that one figures out how to recognize these, he will have the option to counter the fierceness of the developed classes. Another fear that frequents us is the decisions of society shacking our certainty and self-trust. That is the reason individuals will in general be progressively predictable, respectful to their past demonstrations and words on the grounds that the eyes of the general public have no other source to pass judgment on us than our past activities and idioms.
In any case, for what reason would it be a good idea for one to live with his past second thoughts and feelings? Why not develop with time and progress as the world goes? Assume an individual repudiates himself, what at that point? It is an extremely stupid act to live with the memory of one’s past and rehash something very similar and once more. One must advance with time, repudiate himself and adapt new things by investigating himself. One ought to never feel embarrassed in negating himself and ought to talk his contemplations since consistency is simply an issue of discernment. Talk what you think in hard words now and tomorrow express what you think tomorrow with no second thoughts, however it negates all that you state today. To be extraordinary is to be misjudged. Each extraordinary individual including Newton, Pythagoras, Luther, Galileo, Copernicus, and Jesus was misunderstood in their occasions yet are currently considered as the defining moments of the best accomplishments at any point made.
Incredible individuals are never appreciated in their occasions. Their enormity consistently offers to what’s to come. Each individual is the focal point of the universe and has indistinguishable commitments to it from any other individual. So, an individual ought to never bow and request absolution because an inappropriate of others may be his privilege and he isn’t to be accused of that. A genuine man has a place with no other time and place and is the focal point of things. Where he is, nature lives. Each person has colossal potential however he needs to achieve his structure by making himself sufficient against every one of the conditions. A man Caesar was conceived and he gave the establishment to the incomparable Roman Empire. Thus, Jesus was only a typical man and he caused a huge number of psyches to develop and sever to his virtuoso.
In any case, one must not get overpowered by extraordinary names, rather he ought to gain from them. He should regard the world as his canvas and paint on it. He ought to comprehend that the world exists for him and by him. We ought to comprehend that independence is a definitive wellspring of truth and it is the best way to pick up achievement throughout everyday life. For instance, an extraordinary bit of craftsmanship or any incredible work of art is searching for an individual to come and translate it. It doesn’t order us however we direct it and settle its case to commend by our discernment.
Socrates guaranteed that in a majority rules system, a ruler must have a piece of information on himself and must have shrewdness and temperance. Without these, a ruler would get unreasonable and degenerate. J.S. Mill additionally accepted that in a majority rules system, the ruler must speak to the interests of those managed and such popular government would guarantee the freedom of people conceivable. Freedom is very fundamental in guaranteeing the consequent advancement of the two people and society. On the off chance that the general public ever gets free from the administration, it will start to offer significance to a couple of all the more dominant and rich larger parts and start mistreating the minorities. Henceforth, singular freedom will conclude.
While discussing singular freedom, Mill said that the incredible individuals of the past were all self-trained. For instance, in the books of history, there is no referencing of the educator of Shakespeare, or Franklin, or Bacon, or Newton. Every one of them accomplished incredible things and were self-trained. They had the option to accomplish that since they put stock in themselves and didn’t give an ear to what society needed to state about them. There are more prominent men present now than there ever were. They should simply investigate themselves. Everybody is the best of his own time and there is no correlation in him and anybody from the past in light of the fact that he is his own man.
Society resembles a wave. It is moving however it is never advancing. If you proceed to investigate the waves on the ocean side, you will see that the waves created in water simply settle after a couple of times. They start forcefully yet never progress. That inevitably returns to the express that they originated from. This is how society is. It elevates itself to ridicule others, ridicule them, however never advances itself and remains in one spot until the end of time. The solidarity of society is simply amazing. The individual who makes up a country today passes on the following day and his experience kicks the bucket with him. So, everybody should live their lives for themselves, for nobody else. This is a definitive wellspring of bliss.
Plant counters his predicaments by going into moral hypothesis, whereas per him, the main and most important thing is the individual satisfaction feasible by appropriately utilizing one’s abilities and adding to himself without being exposed to society’s partialities and dead authoritative opinions. Along these lines, Mill underlines independence and self-improvement to increase individual joy just as movement for both the individual and society. For Mill himself, a cleaned individual is the person who gains from his doings and attempts to comprehend things better for his very own advancement. He accepts that individual activities are superior to anything the ones taken by the administration as they help in the psychological development of that person. Despite what might be expected, the activities done by the administration represent a risk to the independence of the individuals and their freedom.
Be that as it may, Mill additionally says that there are a few activities of individuals that undermine the opportunity or lives of others and they should be considered responsible for that. This is the place Emerson and Mill negate. Emerson accepts that the individual activity, anyway hurtful they would be for other people, are his concern and ought not to be focused on by the majority. Factory additionally says that at times, the mischief done to others by one’s very own increases can be supported like in business, where one gathering must languish misfortune over the additions of the other party.
Henceforth, the freedom of thought, activity, feeling, and association are extremely essential for an individual to carry on with his life without limit. In any case, one must realize that we are put on the substance of this world to live, not to endure. Thus, independence, in a controlled way, is the genuine method for living and making an incredible most. With the progression of time, man must develop and improve himself by voicing himself and with confidence.
The feminist movement since its earliest times has been marked with varying perspectives, positions and arguments. Nevertheless, these variations should be understandable, especially when interpreted within the contexts (both in time and space) that inspired them. Mary Wollstonecraft and John Stewart Mill represent different times in the evolution of women’s rights movement.
Mary Wollstonecraft and John Stuart Mill
Wollstonecraft and Mill share a common task, namely, the advocacy for more rights for women. That advocacy begins in admitting that women are treated differently from men. Still, as their essays show, there are differences in their advocacies that reflect certain contextual differences of their times.
In A Vindication of the Rights of Women, Wollstonecraft makes her argument based on the issues of morals and virtue. For her, one is considered moral and virtuous if they perform their tasks properly.
However, this devotion to tasks can only occur if all people (men and women) are equal, which is attained through education. She writes: “There must be more equality established in society, or morality will never gain ground, and this virtuous equality will not rest firmly… if one half of mankind [is] chained to its bottom by fate” (Wollstonecraft 802).
If, for instance, a woman paid more attention to what men think of her looks, then she is failing in her moral obligation because she is distracted from her role, herself. She argues that each and every woman should acquire proper education as the only way to gain respect, as well as the freedom to choose the level of her independence.
Wollstonecraft’s view of education for women is different from what Rousseau sees it to be (as women’s attempt to rise above men). For her, the purpose of education is not to give women power over men, but over themselves. Women attain freedom when they start to view themselves from the point of view of the self, and not the other (represented by men, in this case).
She writes: “It is vain to expect virtue from women till they are, in some degree, independent of men; nay, it is vain to expect that strength of natural affection, which would make them good wives and good mothers” (Wollstonecraft 804). A woman who is not educated views herself from the perspective of men. As a result, being conscious of that masculine perspective, she becomes “cunning, mean, and selfish” (805)- either in rebellion against or adoration for that view.
Unmistakably, Wollstonecraft’s arguments adopt a conservative perspective. To her, the ultimate purpose of education for women is not for them to rise above their domestic plight. Rather, education would make them better equipped to be wives and bear children not for employment, voting rights, and property ownership, among others. Education would make women even better moral figures.
Thus, by simply getting education, regardless of whether they remain in the same position as they previously were in, women are freed. We can, therefore, infer that Wollstonecraft, in her advocacy, still believes that the domestic setting is the woman’s place.
Her goal is not to break away from that domestic cycle, but- perhaps to give it better status and name and, consequently, uplift the status of women. To Wollstonecraft, the differences between men and women, as well as their places in society, are both important and should be recognized as such. As long as women get that recognition, for Wollstonecraft, they have attained equality.
John Stuart Mill’s arguments, of course, stem from the foundation first laid by the likes of Wollstonecraft. It is only expected that both Wollstonecraft and Mill share the basic task of advocating for more rights for women. However, the scopes of their advocacies are different. Mill, unlike Wollstonecraft, aims to give women the right to enter into fields hitherto known to belong to men.
Mill examines the subordination of women from the legal dimension, that is, how the legal system (including the constitution) helps this subordination. But that legal system, he argues, is only the result of a social principle that “regulates the existing social relations between the two sexes” (Mill 819). In other words, there is an inherent element of society that makes the subordination of women natural and, therefore, generally accepted. This, he says, hinders human improvement.
The purpose of his essay is to act as a mouthpiece for what he terms as “perfect equality” (Mill 819); a balance of power in which no side is given power over the other. By ‘perfect equality’, Mill means that women should have equal rights as men in all facets of life, such as occupation, government and marriage.
Mill, therefore, introduces the aspect of societal structure (of which the legal system is part). He presents his arguments by examining the role of nature and nurture. He questions the notion of ‘nature’ as used in the society to justify the plight of women. To him, what is seen as women’s nature is actually what the society has nurtured them to be.
The society has never given women much room and freedom to explore what their nature really is. Rather, by placing and governing women within the framework of the dominant patriarchal psyche, society has nurtured the woman into what she is. Simply, the differences between men and women are the products of the society rather than the result of nature. The solution, to him, is found in opening space for women to explore further the limits of their nature.
As a proof of how much women can achieve he says: “We know how small a number of reigning queens history presents, in comparison with that of kings. Of this smaller number a far larger proportion have shown talents for rule” (Mill 823).
The differences in scope between the positions held by Wollstonecraft and Mill are products of context and, therefore, understandable. Besides, as the feminist movement has evolved over the years, the voices of advocacy have increasingly pushed for more rights.
Therefore, it is understandable that Wollstonecraft’s arguments are more conservative in character that education for the housewife is enough for her. She is the product of a context that, perhaps, cannot permit more, and she has to stay within that context’s possibilities. Mill understands this.
He is himself the product of a context that is beginning to open up to more new ideas. Therefore, education as such is not enough for him. To herald a new mindset with regard to social gender relations, Mills believes society must reach out to new horizons. In this respect, the establishments of the society, such as the legal system, should not interfere with the natural social set-up by taking sides.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this paper does not exhaust the issues that both authors explore in their papers. Still, it explores the central themes in the two articles. Wollstonecraft sees education as enough. Mill asks for much more. In the end, they both recognize the adverse plight of the womenfolk and call for their ‘freedom’- any situation better than the present.
Works Cited
Mill, John S. The Subjection of Women, New York: D. Appleton Co., 1869. Print.
Wollstonecraft, Mary. A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, London: Joseph Johnson, 1792. Print.
The harm principle is one of the concepts discussed by John Stuart Mill in his essay On Liberty. The essay addresses the issue of power and authority about society as well as individuals. It explores and discusses the limits of the power that society can exert on an individual to control their actions and behavior. One of the concepts explored in the literature is the harm’s principle.
According to the principle, people should have the freedom to act and behave in ways that please them as long as they do not hurt others (Mill 10). This implies that if an action affects only the individual who is undertaking it, then society should not get involved, even if the individual harms himself or herself.
However, Mills argues that it is wrong for individuals to harm themselves or their property, as stated in principle. He further argues that certain actions harm people indirectly, even when the individual who is undertaking them gets hurt directly.
This argument is developed out of the idea that no human being can live alone without depending on others (Mill 10). Any action that causes harm to an individual can do the same to others in a direct or indirect manner. Also, he argues that destroying property affects everyone in society, albeit in different degrees. The harm principle encourages freedom of speech and individual liberty (Mill 11).
According to Mills, political leaders should have minimal authority over the people as a show of respect to their liberty of thought and action. The principle is largely based on negative freedom. According to Mills, self-protection is the most important objective of society. The only time that society or governments can exercise authority over people is when they harm others through their actions.
Mill maintains that the principle exempts individuals below the age from what any society or country considers right for an adult (Mill 13). The harm principle relates closely to utilitarianism. According to utilitarianism, the aim of any action should be to maximize pleasure and avoid pain.
Therefore, harming others violates the precepts of utilitarianism. In today’s society, the influence of the harm principle is evident from the existence of a criminal justice system. Prisons and correctional facilities were created to confine people who harm others through their actions.
The harm’s principle is plausible because it advocates for equality in society, individual liberty, freedom of speech, and happiness. Also, it promotes the creation of an altruistic society, which encourages people to take care of one another. The principle poses several challenges and obstacles to the maintenance of morality in society. For instance, the principle does not apply appropriately about prostitution and suicide.
The harm principle does not highlight the unethical elements of these activities as long as they do not harm other people. Society has rules and moral principles that every individual should follow. The principle poses threats to societal preservation. Indecent dressing is unacceptable in certain societies.
Such an action does not cause harm to others. Thus it is acceptable under the harm principle. However, such acts are unacceptable because they encourage immorality and apply offensively. The harm principle conflicts with societal morals and ethics.
On the other hand, the principle does not solve the puzzle of societal intervention in cases where the actions of an individual harm others indirectly. For instance, the situation where people gamble and lose their money in casinos is not discussed. These people lose their means of supporting their families, thus hurting them.
However, it is not clear whether the owner of the casino or the individual who gambles his or her money away should be punished. The precepts of the principle seem easy and right to implement. However, they sometimes conflict with societal norms and morals.
Works Cited
Mill, John. On Liberty and Other Essays. New York: Digireads.com Publishing, 2010. Print.
One of the fundamental concerns of social and political philosophy has been the topic of what levels of restrictions if any, should be placed on the liberty of a nation’s inhabitants. Unless one does not value the importance of liberty, we must accept that there is some level of freedom that the state must accord to its citizens. One of the roles of political philosophy is to come up with an extensive theory to determine the limits of these actions. In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill rejects any efforts to restrict people’s opinions and conduct through either legal force or social pressure (Mill, 1859, chapt. 1).
Discussion
Mill illustrates the importance of liberty from a utilitarian perspective. The essay attempts to demonstrate the benefits of liberty on individuals and society as a whole and precisely connects liberty to the ability to move forward, hence keeping away from social stagnation. Liberty of opinion is important for two reasons: the less popular opinion may be right and if this opinion is not right, rejecting it will give chance for people to comprehend their own opinions. Liberty of action is important for similar reasons. The nonconformist may be right, or he may have a mode of life that goes well with him, if not everybody. Furthermore, the nonconformist challenges social norms thereby bringing progress to the society.
Mill makes his points through five chapters. Chapter 1 provides a concise outlook on the meaning of liberty. He also introduces the essential argument in advocating for liberty as long as it does not harm others. Chapters 2 and 3 illustrate the importance of liberty and other people’s views while the fourth chapter discusses the acceptable level of authority that should be placed over a person. The final chapter looks at specific examples and applications of his earlier arguments (Mill, 1859, chapt. 5).
In his defense of liberty, Mill asserts that the only grounds under which coercion can be used is when one exposes some risk to those around him. However, such an action might be vain- the coercion might be in vain, or too costly, or infringe on an individual’s privacy- and this brings it into scrutiny within the span of legitimate state power. There is no other reason than to justify coercion. A person’s actions cannot be restrained because they are wrong or unethical, as long as he does not harm others. In a similar argument, a person’s liberty cannot be denied just because his actions are injurious to him; paternalism is not justifiable. He writes ‘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 sufficient warrant (Mill, 1859, chapt. 1).
Conclusion
Despite Mill’s attempts at presenting the importance of liberty to his readers, he fails to give the precise limits of liberty that should be accorded to a citizen. Besides, he focuses too much on the individual and does not give a useful difference between the actions that are injurious to oneself and those that can bring injury to others. However, the essay does give strong support for nonconformists as beneficial to society, and a similar reminder that no one can be totally sure that his or her way of life is ideal or is the only way.
References
Mill, J. S. On Liberty. (1859). London: John W. Parker and Son.