More handpicked essays just for you.
John stuart mill and paternalism
John stuart mill and paternalism
1a. What is Mill’s view on liberty and paternalism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
I will be discussing John Stuart Mill’s views on paternalism. I will argue how I feel about the subject. Then I will try my best to put myself into Mill’s shoes, argue back and try to see if I can understand where he is coming from with his arguments on paternalism. I plan on saying that there should be certain types of laws for different types of paternalistic acts, weak and strong for example. The laws should depend on what goes on when that act occurs and also after that act. I have strong views against Mill on the general way that he explains paternalism, but when I read more into depth Mill really says what I think should really be done.
My view toward paternalism is somewhat different from that of Mill because Mill believes that there should be a law only against someone harming someone else. I believe that this is a start. Let’s say that you have a strong relationship with a person who all of a sudden wants to kill himself or herself. It would be morally wrong not to try to stop that person from killing him or herself, because you are emotionally attached to that person and their death will in turn hurt you so such. That person might have meant the world to you and now that he or she is gone you might start to feel that there is no point in living also and then you pretty much start a change reaction of bringing everyone down around you. Also, I am not saying that this should be the only reason for stepping in if someone is trying to commit suicide, it is just one of many reasons.
Mill would probably go right to the word “morally” and would likely say, “Should we base all our laws on morals”? Then he might say: “if you believe that then, whose morals should we base them on”? All people’s morals are not t...
... middle of paper ...
...ts, on the “cover”, but once you read more into depth about his weak and strong paternalism then he has some valid points that I agree with completely. If he would have explained the weak and strong paternalism part straight out instead of making the reader read an assume that this is what he meant then a lot of people would agree with what he is trying to say. Since he did not do that except for when he said there should be a law about a person harming someone else I did not really take sides with him at all, until I read more into depth. I am just a person that likes to help people as much as I can. I think about people more that I think about myself. So if I can stop someone from harming him or herself, then I am going to try to do it. So, in conclusion I believe that all people have the same rights, it is just what they decide to do with them is what is wrong.
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
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.
John Stuart Mill and Gerald Dworkin seem to have different viewpoints about paternalism. Paternalism is interference with a person’s liberty of action justified by appeals to welfare or good or happiness or needs. John Stuart Mill seems to be against paternalism since there’s no justification, while Gerald Dworkin claims that it’s justifiable. The question that I will answer is the following: Is paternalism morally justified? And should it be implemented or not? I will argue against paternalism and that it’s not morally justified and that it should not be implemented. It’s not morally justified because it limits our liberties, in which we cannot fully express who we truly are. In order to have a better understanding, I will start the essay
After reading both articles, “Paternalism” by Dworkin and “On Liberty” by Mill, I believe that Dworkin is correct in explaining that some intervention is necessary under certain circumstances. I have come to this conclusion based on the fact that there do exist circumstances in which an individual is incapable of making a rational decision considering not only the well being of himself, but also the well being of other members of society. Also, the argument that the protection of the individual committing the action in question is not reason enough to interfere with the action is ludicrous in that one of our governments main reasons for existence is to protect the members of our society. This protection includes protection from ourselves at times when we are unable to rationally decide what is in our best interests. This essay will consist of an examination of this controversy as well as an application of my proposed conclusion.
To understand Mill’s argument for toleration and why it entails no objective assessment, it is very important to distinguish between the applications of one’s personal beliefs. For instance, Mill argues that there should be no objection to a person’s individual belief and opinion (freedom of conscience), yet he believes there are certain limits to how a person can act on those beliefs. These limits are established by the Harm Principle. Mill professes his belief in autonomy except when a person proves to be placing others in danger with their actions; he asserts that "no one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions." Mill does not believe it is possible to make objective assessments of people’s beliefs and ways of life because beliefs do not have the potential to cause harm as actions do; every human being is the only one to feel his own body and know his own mind intimately and directly. Also, everyone ...
John Stuart Mill argues that the rightness or wrongness of an action, or type of action, is a function of the goodness or badness of its consequences, where good consequences are ones that maximize the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. In this essay I will evaluate the essential features of Mill’s ethical theory, how that utilitarianism gives wrong answers to moral questions and partiality are damaging to Utilitarianism.
Philosophy has offered many works and debates on morality and ethics. One of these works is the concept of utilitarianism. One of the most prominent writers on the theory of utilitarianism is John Stuart Mill. He suggests that utilitarianism may be the guide for morality. His writing on utilitarianism transcends through the present in relation to the famous movie The Matrix. In the movie, people live in a virtual reality where they are relatively happy and content and the real world is filled with a constant struggle to survive. The movie revolves around Neo, who tries to free people from the virtual world in which they live. In light of utilitarianism, freeing these people would be morally wrong. In this essay, I will first explain John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism and some objections it faces. I will then talk about utilitarianism’s relation to The Matrix and why it would be morally wrong to free the people and subject them to the real world.
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).
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.
Fitzpatrick, J. R. (2006). John Stuart Mill's political philosophy: Balancing freedom and the collective good. London [u.a.: Continuum.
...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.
Brink says that then we can clear Mill of the charge of inconsistency about legal moralism. Since, Mill seems pretty consistent with his rejection towards legal moralism. This seems to bring up the debate between Mill and Stephen. Stephen is the author of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity: in which he talks about his defense of the uses of criminal law to promote virtue and curb vice. Mill is the one who provokes Stephen’s criticism, rendering that Mill is an anti-moralist. A century later, Lord Devlin revived Mill and Stephen’s arguments in which Devlin’s defense of legal regulation of homosexuality, prostitution, and pornography, and liberal criticisms. It can be tempting to reject legal moralism of Stephen and Devlin because of Mill’s anti-moralism, but temptation can be resisted.
In Considerations on Representative Government, Mill denounces the idea that a despotic monarchy headed by a good despot is the best form of government. Mill goes on to share the reason behind this idea. The reason lies in the supposition that a distinguished individual with absolute power will ensure that all the duties of government is performed intelligently and virtuously. Mill does not disagree with this belief but he finds the need to address it. He states that an “all-seeing” monarch rather than a “good monarch” is needed. The despot would need to be informed correctly and in detail at all time, and be able to oversee every division of administration with effective attention and care in the twenty-four hours per day he has. If not, the
My thoughts and feelings on Mill vary, but I’d like to share my negative opinion towards the principle and hope to put it in a different perspective. The harm principle was published in Mill’s work, Of Liberty, in 1859. He states, “That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant (978).” This means that government is not able to control peoples’ actions unless they are causing harm to other individuals.
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.