Even though academic study has frequently engaged with the question as to what form of government is ideal and what should be the goal of the government , there cannot be one absolute answer to this question , not merely because there has been no consensus among the scholarly community but because these questions cannot be detached from the polities which will bear the implications of the answer. Hence , it is pertinent that they must be looked at in a particular context. Mill argues for a representative government where sovereignty is vested in the aggregate of the community while Locke advocates majoritarian rule where legislative is supreme, though he prescribes certain limitations on it, and is coupled with a powerful executive. At the first glance representative government and majoritarian rule might appear to be similar , but after reading their texts it can be certainly be deduced that they did not had the same form of government in mind because it is evident that both envisage different goals of a government and therefore the means to achieve those ends are also different. Mill, in his consideration on representative government, says that purpose of a good government is two fold. First is that how far the government machinery takes advantage of the existing good faculties of the people (protective goal) and second how to what extent does it contributes to the improvement of those qualities(educative goal). Thus for him it is essential that the government must ‘improve’ the masses and make them active participants in the national discourse. So if a government forces the citizens to be only passive recipients of its actions it is a bad government. On the surface it may seem a very noble idea to pursue but it can also impl... ... middle of paper ... ...ideal , but it is the right form of government for people who have not reached a certain level of development. Locke believes that absolute monarchy is unfit for civil society because property is not safe under it and can be taken at the monarch’s whim. It is strange how Mill only talks in terms of two extreme forms of government representative and despotism , and does not tells a way from moving from despotism to government. However though his model of government is not bereft with defects it does provide some extremely fine framework and is more forward looking than Locke’s model in which the government doesnot aspires any intellectual or political thought but only maintains the status quo. In conlclusion, Mill’s notions of the government’s paternal role is praiseworthy but if looked at more closely it can create a lot of problems which Mill maybe overlooked.
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Niccolo Machiavelli, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill present three distinct models of government in their works The Prince, Second Treatise of Government, and Utilitarianism. From an examination of these models it is possible to infer their views about human nature and its connection to the purpose of government. A key to comparing these views can be found in an examination of their ideas of morality as an intermediary between government and human nature. Whether this morality must be inferred from their writings or whether it is explicitly mentioned, it differs among the three in its definition, source, and purpose.
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
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).
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke have authored two works that have had a significant impact on political philosophy. In the “Leviathan” by Hobbes and “Two Treatises of Government” by Locke, the primary focus was to analyze human nature to determine the most suitable type of government for humankind. They will have confounding results. Hobbes concluded that an unlimited sovereign is the only option, and would offer the most for the people, while for Locke such an idea was without merit. He believed that the government should be limited, ruling under the law, with divided powers, and with continued support from its citizens. With this paper I will argue that Locke had a more realistic approach to identifying the human characteristics that organize people into societies, and is effective in persuading us that a limited government is the best government.
Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and civil society, the concepts with which each theorist associates liberty, and the means of ensuring and safeguarding liberty that each theorist devises.
Review this essay John Locke – Second treatise, of civil government 1. First of all, John Locke reminds the reader from where the right of political power comes from. He expands the idea by saying, “we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit.” Locke believes in equality among all people. Since every creature on earth was created by God, no one has advantages over another.
One of Locke’s broadest conclusions is his definition of the role of the state. He defines the states only real role is to ensure justice is done based on what he states are unalienable rights granted to all: life, liberty and the pursuit of estate. Because society has given birth to the state to defend these rights that define justice, society also grants legitimacy to the state. We see echoes of Locke’s theories manifested in societal archetypes like democracy and perhaps even certain anarchist theories.
Mill was a philosopher, and was a member of the philosophical radicals, which was a group of utilitarian philosophers. His father and Bentham taught him to be the perfect utilitarian such as developing his opinions also ideas. He felt that his "habit of analysis" had destroyed his capacity for emotion. When he was going through a rough time he would get very paranoid. Once that time was over Mill entered a new era, and started to create his book On Liberty.
Charles Baudelaire, a well-known English poet, once said that “Nature... is nothing but the inner voice of self-interest.” The philosophical theme of self-interest has been a common idea among political thinkers for many years. In any issue that is linked to the realm of political philosophy, the role of self-interest within a society must be considered. The role of self-interest within a society is the basis for the moral thinking that involves weighing the “needs and obligations of an individual against the goods of the individual and in turn society” (The Role of Self interest in Political Philosophy). Before confronting an issue within a society, a political thinker must decide whether or not people are ultimately self-interested. The government system of checks and balances was established to confront the issue of self-interest. The political thinkers, John Stuart Mill and John Locke unveiled the mysteries of what it meant to live in freedom and possess liberty, in which the self-interest of humanity does not impose on the rights of others. Both Locke and Mills believed that in order to govern over a society, people must have freedom. The difference between these political thinkers lies in how much freedom people should be entitled to within a political society.
Is the purpose of government today, similar to that of philosophers of the past, or has there been a shift in political thought? This essay will argue that according to Machiavelli’s The Prince, the purpose of government is to ensure the stability of the state as well as the preservation of the established ruler’s control, and that the best form of government should take the form of an oligarchy. In contrast, in his book, Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes argues that the purpose of government should be to preserve the peace and security of men and, that the best form of government would be an absolute monarchy which would sanction such conditions. This essay will utilize themes of glory, material advantage, peace and stability to illustrate
...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.
Many libertarians have advocated for individual liberties in regards to property ownership, the pursuit of happiness and political involvement etc. However the role of the governments is central to this discussion. Should privatization and ownership be controlled by the government in power? Or should the government just let the invisible hand of capitalism fix any issues that occurs. This essay will address the reason, according to Mill that government should allow for a wide scope for individual liberties. In order to understand this argument, it is important to know the importance of individual liberties, not only for man but for women as well. Men and women both benefit from having a lot of individual liberties. This essay will present the
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
Second, there is the criticism that governments have a duty to uphold certain beliefs that are important to the well being of society. Only "bad" men would try to undermine these beliefs. Mill replies that this argument still relies on an assumption of i...
Mill begins On Liberty by stating his goal explicitly: a discussion of civil or social liberty and more specifically, what power society or government can legitimately wield over the people—“the struggle between Liberty and Authority” (On Liberty, 3). As will be shown in more detail later, Mill seems to find himself, and the developed world, in a period of transition. He notes that historical liberty was based on seeking protection against the political tyranny of leaders who did not rule by the will of the people or for the good of the people. Reformers, unsatisfied with the state of affairs, tried to limit the r...