Mill’s Philosophy Mill’s three main point from this reading on “Limits of the Authority of Society over the Individual” are that society acts as a means of protecting us and each individual has a said role within, and that human beings should be concerned with the well-being of others rather than just self-interest. Mill’s opens this reading by asking us several questions regarding society and the individual. He wonders where the line should be drawn between human life being assigned to the individual and being allocated to society. Mill’s continues by saying that the individual is that part which is chiefly concerned with the individual and interests, and society is that part which is chiefly concerned with the interest of society and those within it (285). After classifying the two, Mill’s goes into explaining the debt the individual owes society by stating that “everyone who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefits, and the fact of living in society …show more content…
He begins the paragraph by saying that it would be a great misunderstanding of the doctrine, to suppose that it is one of selfish indifference. He then goes on to say “Instead of diminution, there is need of a great increase of disinterested exertion to promote the good of others. But disinterested benevolence can find other instruments to persuade people to do their good” (285). In other words, Mill thinks that instead of reducing the amount of disinterested exertion or effort, we should increase the amount of disinterested effort, resulting in more people doing good simply for the fact of doing good, without self-interest. However, disinterested benevolence or kindness can also persuade others to do good without self-interest. If we can accomplish deeds through disinterested effort and kindness, and with a high concern for others, we can all
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
While introducing the sociology of C. Wright Mills, Frank W. Elwell (2006) explained Mill’s conception of a power elite that dominates modern industrial societies, like America. According to Mills, present day societies host a small and unified group, called the power elite. The power elite holds enormous power because they are in control of the major bureaucratic organizations that currently dominate modern societies (p. 10). Mill’s perspective strongly emphasized the ongoing rationalization process and how this was related to the intensifying bureaucratization process that has shaped social structures and social organization. The processes of rationalization and bureaucratization have deeply affected many societies and Mills argued that these
The principle of utility states that actions or behaviors are right in so far as they promote happiness or pleasure, wrong if they tend to deliver despondency or torment. Mill believes that the principle of utility is the perfect way to evaluate ethics is through the individual's happiness. People who have the opportunity to chose or purse there own form of happiness usually makes really wise ethical decisions, which improves society. I agree with mill’s theory because happiness always produces good things, which would very beneficial to the
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 believes in a utilitarian society where people are seen as “things.” Moreover, in utilitarianism the focus of the goal is “forward-looking”, in looking at the consequences but not the ini...
John Stuart Mill crafted the “harm principle” in order to establish a reasonable basis of conduct within a structured society. The central thesis of this paper is, Mill’s “harm principle” allows governments to act in ways that will allow others to grow and purse happiness in a society. By examining Mill’s principle, the paper will show how governments are justified to interfere with an individual’s liberty. This argument will provide a reasonable bases of government intervention regarding human nature. Governments then have a right to control members of a society by means of coercion.
Mill’s convincing argument explains the context that natural rights are nonsense when they do not have legal protection and the hierarchal morality innately exists in mankind. Together Mill accounts for the legal and morality of natural rights.
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.
John Stuart Mill’s view of justice as a tool of utility protects the moral rights of individuals. Rights are utilitarian to Mill because they allow for individual people to flourish and society as a whole could not make any progress without the flourishing of its people. Justice is a tool which protects these rights and allows for a progression in society. Private property is included in Mill’s concept of justice, however it can also work against expediency and the flourishing of a society.
John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty is a text that of course deals with liberty, which ties in with one of the questions addressed by this course: What does freedom even mean? But something that I found new and interesting in this text is the author’s notion of three types of liberties: liberty to think, liberty to pursue, and the freedom to plan our own lives. Furthermore, he delves into the idea that the authority of society infringes on our individual liberty.
In his essay “On Liberty”, John Stuart Mill carefully analyzes the ideas of the individual’s role of contributing to society, the individual’s rights and freedoms, and when said freedom becomes subject to limitations. His thoughts can be seen in many western cultures today, long after his era of the 19th century. For example, Mill argues that when it comes to individual liberties, children need guidance and should not be held fully capable with their actions based on decisions. Through reading his essay, I found myself agreeing with many of his statements and thoughts, and became uncomfortable with others. It was in the more uncomfortable points that I found myself disagreeing with, I decided to look at Mill’s beliefs in context with what was influencing him at the time. From historical and political events of his time, tied in with his everyday life and expected social norms, much of what he believes makes sense to what his, and many others, were experiencing in the 19th century and the start of the Victorian era. With this thought, I began to question a few of his key thoughts based on his involvement with the East India Company in the time of the Opium Wars.
Mill’s critics would likely say that Utilitarianism as a whole can function to create selfish people because all are striving towards a life of more pleasure than pain, but Mill shuts this down with the idea of happiness being impartial. Basically, a person must choose an action that yields the most happiness or pleasure, whether that pleasure is for them or not. Mill would recognize that, “Among the qualitatively superior ends are the moral ends, and it is in this that people acquire the sense that they have moral intuitions superior to mere self-interest” (Wilson). By this, it is meant that although people are supposed to take action that will produce the greatest pleasure, the do not do so in a purely selfish manner. Mill goes on to argue that the happiness of individuals is interconnected; therefore one cannot be selfish in such a way. Along with the criticism of Utilitarianism and the principle of utility being selfish, many argue that such a doctrine promotes expediency in order to benefit the person conducting the action alone. I would disagree with these criticisms, and find Mill’s argument valid. His argument counters
Mills(1959), also wrote about public issues of social structure, referring to matters that go beyond the individual and look at society as a whole. How society is organised and how society works. This goes far beyond ‘the troubles of milieu, as it doesn’t look at the person and there individual experiences in society but looks at the wider social structure e.g social institutions… education, religion, family, law and how they have developed and interact with each other examples of the differenc...
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.