“If all mankind minus one were of one 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, 2002, pg.14) John Stuart Mill, an English philosopher of the 19th century, and said to be one of the most influential thinkers in the areas regarding social theory, political theory, and political economy had strong views regarding free speech. In his following quote, he states that if all mankind had an opinion or an action, and another individual had a different opinion, mankind would not be justified in silencing that one individual just like that one individual, if given the power to do so, would not be justified in silencing all of mankind. Mill’s argument is that every individual has value, meaning, and power within their opinions and that we should not be the ones to stop them from having the right to state their opinion. Their actions and who they are as a person should not be silenced. In the spirit of the greater good of mankind and freedom of expression, one must have the right to liberty and free expression without being silenced and the right to one’s own freedom.
John Stuarts most famous essay, On Liberty came out in 1859. His father, James Mill, who was said to be a strict Utilitarian, raised him. Mill had a difficult childhood; he suffered a nervous breakdown when he was 21 when we first began to question his beliefs. He later on continued to struggle with his sense that Utilitarianism was too unemotional and that it failed to capture or understand the higher pleasures. Thus where On Liberty comes into play, this essay was established to broaden the meaning of utility and show that Utilitarianism can in fact provide a strong pr...
... middle of paper ...
...ave the freedm to make mistakes and have discussions and debates in a healthy setting where others can learn from each other, and be able to raise their voice without having to be worried by the idea of being bullied. He strongly believed in having the freedom to develop your own personality and having the strength to make choices. Mills is only able to see progress in society if we enter a world of culture, free conformity, and harm. We must be given the right to free expression, freedom and the right to liberty without the fear of threat or being silenced. It’s because of these justifications that mill believes that mankind would not be justified in silencing an individual just like that one inidivdual, if given the power to do so, would not be justified in silencing all of mankind. Through these actions, we as humans will create the ultimate gaood for mankind.
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
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
Richard Lebow’s analyzed Mill’s arguments sustaining that it can be identified two contrary visions; one arguing for the market on its own and the other for the necessity of a state’s intervention. This classification of two clearly opposed views is also raised by Gide and Rist in the following statement “During the first half of his life, Mill was an individualist who was deeply committed to utilitarianism. During the second half, he was a socialist who remained a champion of individual liberty” (1947, page
From top to bottom, John Stuart Mill put forth an incredible essay depicting the various unknown complexities of morality. He has a remarkable understanding and appreciation of utilitarianism and throughout the essay the audience can grasp a clearer understanding of morality. Morality, itself, may never be totally defined, but despite the struggle and lack of definition it still has meaning. Moral instinct comes differently to everyone making it incredibly difficult to discover a basis of morality. Society may never effectively establish the basis, but Mill’s essay provides people with a good idea.
In relation to social obligations and advancement of society, Mill writes advocating the expression of one’s opinion as the main driving force. Mill states, “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 sile...
The short essay On Liberty was written by an English philosopher by the name of John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). In this essay Mill basically talk about the system of utilitarianism to society and the state. Mill attempts to establish standards for the relationship between authority and liberty. He emphasizes the importance of individuality which he conceived as a prerequisite to the higher pleasures the “summum bonum” of Utilitarianism. Furthermore, Mill criticized the errors of past attempts to defend individuality where democratic ideals resulted in the "tyranny of the majority". Mill explains his concept of individual freedom of his ideas on history and on the state. On Liberty relies on the idea that society progresses from lower to higher stages and that this
Something that many countries during his time really didn’t offer. Mill constantly preached the beauty in having a society that offered freedom to people, that freedom would in turn give them power to buy, sell, and trade; creating a better and more stable economy all over. Just like the United States of America works to keep an open and capitalistic economic system, so Mill worked to spread and make truth about the freedoms of purchases. But much like the USA contradicts itself with statement of guaranteed freedoms so did Mill himself contradict himself. Mill was someone that believe in inheritance tax, mandatory educational standards, and above all contract and property right not being included in freedoms offered.
Wright Mill’s, regarding the fact that freedom, wealth, and equality are things that are not properly exercised in the “new society of America”. “We confront there a new kind of social structure, which embodies elements and tendencies of all modern society, but in which they have assumed a more naked and flamboyant prominence”. Essentially Mills is stating that the methods in which we as a society used to interpret politics, economics, etc. cannot be applied anymore due to the fact that modern society has evolved so much. Due to the fact that in modern day, the upper class elites have the largest influence on how essentially all aspects of society are run, it disregards the lower class’s abilities to exercise their rights to freedom and
In conclusion, He was mostly known for his radical views. Principles of Political Economy, On Liberty, The Subjections of Women, and the Three Essays of Religion: Nature, the Utility of Religion, and Theism, where just some of the many works that he published to show the world that everything is not always perfect and intact. He showed that you could express your mind and that this is the new era of thinking. His writings on women’s rights to the economy where way ahead of his time. It is true that John Stuart Mill’s is not known well enough today as he should be.
John Locke (1632-1704) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) are two important thinkers of liberty in modern political thought. They have revolutionized the idea of human freedom at their time and have influenced many political thinkers afterwards. Although their important book on human freedom, John Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government (1689) and John Mill’s On Liberty (1859), are separated 170 years, some scholars thinks that they are belonging to the same conceptual tradition, English Liberalism. In this essay, I will elaborate John Locke and John Stuart Mill view on human freedom and try to find the difference between their concept of human freedom despite their similar liberal tradition background.
Cahn, Steven M., and Peter J. Markie. "John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism; Chapter 2: What Utilitarianism Is." 2009. Ethics: History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues. 4th ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2009. 330-41. Print.
One of the more severe charges against Mill's conception of liberty involves socio-cultural background of the author's politics. Mill advocates paternalism on moral grounds in several instances that suggest an intellectual bias and a level of intellectual superiority, embedded in the nineteenth century culture and the Western world. Under Mill's paradigm, freedom is limited to those who are capable of rationality, allowing despotism as a sufficient alternative to 'educating' in all other instances (Goldberg, 2000). Thus, one's incompetence allows for a coercive force and social control (Conly, 2013).
...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.
Mills believes that the people who “silence” people the most would be the Catholic Church. He thinks they are the most prejudice against people who voice against there believes. He explains, “…that a large portion of the noblest and most valuable moral teaching has been the work, not only of men who did not know, but men who knew and rejected, the Christian faith” (49). Essentially, some of our most important teachings have come from people speaking against the Christian Church. In summary, Mills believes that in order for people and society to progress, we must give them the ability to think for themselves. Mills is persuasive in his first argument because a society that is silenced will never...
An individual does not make a community, and a community does not make a society. In order to have a functioning and prosperous society, one must relinquish some free will in return for protection. According to John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, there are certain rights of the individual which the government may never possess. Centuries after the publication of Mill’s Essay, the court case Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegeta l , 546 U.S. 418 (2006) challenged the protective role of government against the free exercise of religion. In this instance, Mill would agree with the court ruling because, like his views concerning free exercise of will, government restriction and majority rule, both the court ruling and Mill’s ideals are concerned for the best interests of the individual rather than for the greater good of society.