Concept of Individual Freedom

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Rousseau vs. Mill
The better regime
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

Rousseau and Mill were political philosophers with interest in understanding what entailed individual freedom. Nevertheless, the two do not share common views regarding individual liberty. Mill perceives individual liberty as freedom of self-control in a mutual context (Mill 11). He focuses on the development of mans ethical character through psychological, social, and political liberty. Mill believes that everyone in the society is bound by an equal measure of personal freedom. Hence, the main reason why people come together in the society is to ensure that they do not infringe into others liberty.

In addition, Mill has the conviction that the society works to maintain its advancement and prevent its extermination, by giving room for an open personal expression. On the other hand, Rousseau views individual freedom as comprising of a collective body bound by a general will (Rousseau 3). This paper compares Rousseaus idea of individual freedom with Mills idea.

Rousseau vs. Mill

According to Mill, a belief is insignificant if it is only approved as a fact without being comprehended by those who embrace it. He elucidates, There is only too great a tendency in the best beliefs and practices to degenerate into the mechanical& (Mill13). Mill claims that to curb this issue, a belief should be discussed fearlessly, regularly, and completely. Otherwise, people will consider it a dead doctrine.

Mill claims that for any truth to apply to an individual, one has to use his or her views and judgment in ascertaining the truth. He believes that the veracity of any opinion makes part of its usefulness and no opinion that is against the truth can be of any use. Consequently, Mill believes that for individuals to trust in any opinion, it has to be of significance to them. Moreover, people are different, and thus truth ought to vary from one person to another (Mill13).

Based in these postulations, Mill holds that limiting individual freedom means rendering the entire society inert and inhibiting its progress. Progress comes from allowing individual liberties like personal expression. Allowing individual freedom gives a society a wider range of opinions and ideas to choose from, thus encouraging growth. Conforming to traditions without understanding their values does not facilitate personal development.

Consequently, individual freedom is identical to individual growth. Mill claims that when a person values him or herself, s/he is in a better position to be of significance to others (Mill15). He asserts that through personal development, an individual develops the entire society.

Mill claims that to understand how individual freedom facilitates in social bonding, one ought to understand the interaction between individuals and the state. Mill posits, The individual is not accountable to society for its actions in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself (21). Besides, individual freedom, just like other freedoms, surpasses all other authorities.

Therefore, individuals are allowed an open exercise over them in Mills principle. Mill is categorical that the law should not enforce itself, for example on a person acting in a manner criticized by others, since s/he has the ideal liberty to act and bear the cost of his or her actions as long as the actions do not infringe into the freedom of others. The society only takes control of individual freedom if an individuals actions tend to violate the societys freedom.

Rousseau views the general will as the foundation of freedom, justice, and order in the society (Rousseau 3). He believes that the general will is superior in the manner that it differentiates the will of individuals. The general will cannot wish or injure itself since it comprises people it affects, and thus all its interests are in congruence with the interests of the people. For Rousseau, general will always comes up with decisions that are beneficial to all (Rousseau 4). In addition, it derives its generality from the mutual interests that unite people and not from the number of voices.

Hence, popular vote can facilitate in making effective determinations. Rousseau claims that in spite of the general will, every person remains independent. Although the general will determines what is right, individuals have voluntarily opted to embrace it, thus remaining their own masters. More particularly, the common dedication amongst all people is such that, & in fulfilling it & a man cannot work for others without at the same time working for himself (Rousseau 5). However, it is hard for an individual to detach himself or herself from the general will. This aspect inhibits individualism, as one has to obey the rules of the general will.

The better regime

Evaluating the two regimes, one may claim that they both have their benefits and limitations. Although Rousseaus regime would promote social cohesion as people come together to address common interests, the system would be prone to resistance from its members. In spite of people sharing some common will, they might also have private will that differs with the general will.

In such a case, the regime would encounter stiff opposition as people seek to have space to attend to their private will, which in a way might violate the established general will. Moreover, the dedications that bring people together in Rousseaus regime are mandatory only since they are communal. It would be hard for one to leave the social body should he or she cease to share mutual interests with others. In such a case, the affected person would not enjoy his or her freedom since s/he would remain in the group unwillingly.

Mills regime is better as compared to Rousseaus regime. The regime not only gives room for personal rights, but also provides the mechanism to safeguard these rights. Such a regime encourages commitment from the society. In a situation where one is not constrained by anything apart from the effects of his actions on others, it is possible for an individual to pursue his or her personal goals without interference.

A regime that calls for people to observe mutual interests not only frustrates individuals effort to pursue personal goals, but also inhibits innovation. Every person works towards improving his or her living standards. Consequently, individuals would be willing to go a step further to come up with innovations to help them to pursue their goals. Nevertheless, if people were required to ensure that their innovations are in line with the needs of everyone in the society or a set of regulations agreed upon by the entire society, they would be discouraged from pursuing their goals in fear of violating the established regulations.

Without individuality, it is hard to accomplish individual liberty in society. I would rather be a citizen in Mills regime. The fact that this regime promotes individuality makes it possible for individuals in the society to uphold social order. In a bid to pursue personal goals, one has to enjoy personal liberty as well as peace. In Mills regime, people would work hard to preserve their freedom and avoid infringing into the freedom of others. Hence, such a society would coexist in harmony. Mills regime would promote individual freedom, order, and justice. In such an environment, it is possible for an individual to make significant steps towards development.

Conclusion

Rousseau and Mill present two opposing views about individual liberty. They put forward two regimes that perceive individual liberty in different dimensions. Rousseaus regime perceives liberty in the form of the general will that brings individuals together to work towards achieving mutual interests.

On the other hand, Mills regime perceives individual liberty as independent with every person having a set of personal interests and goals. Mill believes that individual freedom brings people together as they seek to come up with measures to make sure that they do not infringe into the freedom of others.

The main limitation of Rousseaus regime is that it is susceptible to opposition from the members due to conflict of interests. Moreover, the regime discourages innovation and individual growth as mutual interests bind all members.

On the other hand, Mills regime has numerous benefits. The regime allows individuals to pursue personal interests as long as the interests do not interfere with the freedom of others. Hence, Mill offers a better regime that can foster not only personal growth, but also societal growth.

Works Cited

Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics, London: Penguin Classics, 2004. Print.

Aristotle. The Politics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985. Print.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince, New York: Hackett Pub Co., 1995. Print.

Mill, John. On Liberty and Other Writings: Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Print.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract, London: Penguin Books, 1968.Print.

Click Here To Order Now!