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.
Mills starts out in his first argument by being concerned that people were being silenced when voicing their opinions. He voices that by saying: “First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility”(50). Mills means that when someone’s opinion is being silenced by another, the latter will assume that their believes are to be true.
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...
... middle of paper ...
...we can prove it more accurately. Mills is persuasive because it is hard to justify your own argument as true when no other opposing side is heard. This notion directly connects to his fourth and final argument.
In Mills fourth argument it discusses the importance of learning and understanding our own opinions, because when we comprehend our opinions, it makes our argument much stronger. Mills believes “experience” is important when making an argument. “Every opponent who pushes them hard, and whom they find it difficult to answer, appears to them, if he shows any strong feeling on the subject, an intemperate opponent” (50). Mills means that when you lack convictions it makes your argument less valid. Mills is persuasive because when people hold a belief because they are told too, they never really care enough about that belief to feel as if they should take action.
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
The concept of sociological imaginations allows us to get out of our own judgment zone with regards to how we think about social problems. Instead, it allows us to step into the other person’s shoes to see things from their own perspectives. Also, to try as hard as we can to understand why that problem might exist for that individual. C. Wright Mills argument is that we should develop a method or a way of looking at things in the society from the point of view of the person experiencing the sociological phenomenon. In essence, we can’t look at things from our own moral point of view; we need to look at things from the point of view of the person experiencing the issue, the concern, and the problem. Mills believes that the individual cannot understand themselves as individuals; also they can’t understand their role in society without this understanding....
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.
Fundamental to Mills’ theory is the idea of ‘public issues’. the ‘private trouble’. An individual’s troubles are personal when they occur because of the person’s character. Public issues, however, are a direct result of the problems within. society, they affect people hugely but often the individual will assign the problem as their own personal downfall rather than as a a societal problem..
d) Too much deliberation: Mill looks into morality as a social practice and not as autonomous
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
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
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.
Mill, John S. The Basic Writings of John Stuart Mill. New York, New York: Modern Library, 2002. Print.
Mill first acknowledges that the majority fears individualism. Despite the worth of individual spontaneity, Mill explains that, “Spontaneity forms no part of the ideal of the majority of moral and social reformers, but is rather looked on [...] as a troublesome and perhaps rebellious obstruction to the general acceptance of what these reformers, in their own judgement, think would be best for mankind”. The negative tone of “a troublesome and perhaps rebellious obstruction” illustrates the majority’s disdain for originality because it interferes with their commonly-held beliefs. Interestingly, Tocqueville would support the viewpoint of the majority; however, unlike the Americans who ignore their desires, Mill encourages citizens to embrace their individuality because he believes that it will be beneficial to society rather than “troublesome.” The sarcastic tone of “in their own judgement” highlights Mill’s argument that most of the majority’s opinions are not infallible and that it is the individual's job to continue to question these ideas, despite the majority’s constant unwillingness to accept criticism. In addition, Mill argues that “In proportion to the development of his individuality, each person becomes more valuable to himself, and is therefore capable of being more valuable to others”. The comparison
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.
The first task incumbent on the expounder of Mill’s views of propositions is to specify the question regarding propositions that Mill intends to answer. In Book I, Chapter v, § 1 of A System of Logic, Mill distinguishes two kinds of inquiry concerning the nature of propositions. The first inquiry concerns the peculiar mental state called "belief." Mill agrees there is something compelling about the prevalent philosophical conception of belief, according to which a belief consists in bringing together two ideas in the mind. According to Mill, however, this account captures only a necessary condition for belief; it is not sufficient to explain belief. Why not? We can bring together two ideas in the mind, e.g. when we imagine something, without thereby entertaining a belief. Mill agrees with Hume here, and this first inquiry concerning the nature of propositions is none other that Hume’s question about the difference between belief and the mere entertainment of a proposition. Mill does not attempt to answer Hume’s question, however.
...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.
... beacon of hope for liberals and what Mills believes is the lower level of power is the public or the masses. The public is defined as those who have no defined or well structured interests. Mills is of the opinion that their political influence is also decreasing and that they are being guided by the media and other forms of mass communication which is controlled by the ruling elite.
middle of paper ... ... Philosophers, such as John Stuart Mill, have debated the role and the extension of government in the people’s lives for centuries. Mill presents a clear and insightful argument, claiming that the government should not be concerned with the free will of the people unless explicit harm has been done to an individual. However, such ideals do not build a strong and lasting community. It is the role of the government to act in the best interests at all times through the prevention of harm and the encouragement of free thought.