Mills and Rousseau on Contemporary Issues

1178 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Rousseau's theory of freedom

Several philosophers have provided individual theories on different forms of government as well as how societies prefer to live. Researching the observations different philosophers created is quite interesting. Recognizing that many of the views philosophers had has now shown to be true regarding contemporary issues. The contemporary issue this paper will examine will be the violent acts law enforcement displayed towards their citizens during the G20. This paper will also discuss how John Mills in On Liberty and Rousseau in Discourse would have viewed this issue as well as personal opinions to both Rousseau and Mills ideologies. Through this paper insight on these philosophers views as well as the violence during the G20 will be displayed.
Both Mills and Rousseau shaped different theories involving government as well as how societies behave. Although each ideology is different both display well argumentative explanations. Beginning with Mills in On Liberty’s introduction he speaks on how society can have power over individuals “Civil, or Social Liberty: the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual.” (Mills,1). When discussing democracy Mills makes aware of the negative attributes that may be present in a democracy. The majority of the people who have the same beliefs will gain more power over the minority group. This could also be viewed as the powerful over the less powerful. This may create a problem in a democracy because the majority group weakens the minority opinions. In order to create a just society there must not be any fear of the government. Mills theory will help create a more justifiable government. Taking a look at Mills harm theory he believes that the onl...

... middle of paper ...

... a society such as Canada’s people should be able to speak their mind as well as not fear those who are supposed to protect them. The power difference between individuals protesting and law enforcement was immense and showed the inequality in Canadian society. People should work together with both the government as well as law enforcement. After reading Mills and Rousseau’s work both could provide insight on what took place during the G20. If Mills were alive to see what took place in Toronto he could provide insight to help interpret the issue. As stated earlier Mills believed people should be able to peacefully speak their mind as long as it does not bring harm to another individual. In the case of the G20 Mills would have been saddened by how the law enforcement acted. By taking away the peoples voice they were not able to hear their concerns or their thoughts.

Show More
Related

  • Mill Vs Metternich

    412 Words  | 1 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France and John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty

    1283 Words  | 3 Pages

    In this paper I will compare the theories and ideas from both Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France and John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty. In comparing these two philosophers, I will be paralleling their ideas and my own ideas I will be attributing them towards the modern day whistleblower, Edward Snowden. Political figures, government representatives and philosophy advocates have carefully studied Burke’s and Mill’s writings over hundreds of years to better understand their theories on governmental control in a society. One of, if not the most noteworthy concept in both their famous writings revolved around the concept of governmental control in a society. Both Burke and Mill have their own theories; they also have many convincing opinions that help them to sustain their own individuality. In order to compare their views of governmental control and relate it to Edward Snowden it is imperative to thoroughly examine and understand each of their perspectives on civilization and governmental control in a society.

    Read More

  • The Role of Naturalism and Rationalism in American and British Gun Policy

    753 Words  | 2 Pages

    As previously stated, nations often base themselves and thusly their common laws off the chosen philosophy of the country. For instance, in the United States of America, police officers carry guns. In Great Britain, however, officers are banned from carrying extremely harmful weapons such as firearms and instead carry the classic truncheon. To the average citizen of each of these countries, the policy that their law enforcement adheres to makes perfect and logical sense, while the opposite country’s policy seems to be either dangerous and overly violent or as overly merciful. However, the reason as to why these two sibling nations differ so greatly comes down to one simple thing: the gun policy imposed on American officers are different from those used in Britain because of conflicting common philosophic beliefs found in both of the countries, where America takes on a naturalistic, believing that humans are inherently evil, viewpoint and Britain sports a rather rationalistic, where in which hum...

    Read More

  • Improving Society: Mill’s On Liberty and Marx’s Communist Manifesto

    1690 Words  | 4 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Locke And Napoleon

    1289 Words  | 3 Pages

    Rousseau, however, believed, “the general will by definition is always right and always works to the community’s advantage. True freedom consists of obedience to laws that coincide with the general will.”(72) So in this aspect Rousseau almost goes to the far extreme dictatorship as the way to make a happy society which he shows in saying he, “..rejects entirely the Lockean principle that citizens possess rights independently of and against the state.”(72)

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mill Essay

    3246 Words  | 7 Pages

    ...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.

    Read More

  • Rousseau's View of Humanity

    1102 Words  | 3 Pages

    Jean Jacques Rousseau in On Education writes about how to properly raise and educate a child. Rousseau's opinion is based on his own upbringing and lack of formal education at a young age. Rousseau depicts humanity as naturally good and becomes evil because humans tamper with nature, their greatest deficiency, but also possess the ability to transform into self-reliant individuals. Because of the context of the time, it can be seen that Rousseau was influenced by the idea of self-preservation, individual freedom, and the Enlightenment, which concerned the operation of reason, and the idea of human progress. Rousseau was unaware of psychology and the study of human development. This paper will argue that Rousseau theorizes that humanity is naturally good by birth, but can become evil through tampering and interfering with nature.

    Read More

  • Gun Violence In Modern Society

    981 Words  | 2 Pages

    Throughout history, many political and societal issues on a plethora of topics which societies have faced, although dealt with differently under varying circumstances, are relatively constant. One such topic, that of violence in modern society, is of great importance in the public eye, and governments try to respond to societal violence, whichever way is deemed judicious and appropriate, considering the ways which the public views such matters. Specifically speaking to issues of violence in modern society, gun control is a topic that is enveloped in political controversy. Governments behave differently to combat gun violence, according to their fundamental ideals and the opinions and paradigms of those who society is comprised. The nature or presence of any legislative action is usually

    Read More

  • Exploring Karl Marx and Jean-Jacque Rousseau's Views on Freedom

    1544 Words  | 4 Pages

    While the writings of Karl Marx and Jean-Jacque Rousseau occasionally seem at odds with one another both philosophers needs to be read as an extension of each other to completely understand what human freedom is. The fundamental difference between the two philosophers lies within the way which they determine why humans are not free creatures in modern society but once were. Rousseau draws on the genealogical as well as the societal aspects of human nature that, in its development, has stripped humankind of its intrinsic freedom. Conversely, Marx posits that humankind is doomed to subjugation in modern society due to economic factors (i.e. capitalism) that, in turn, affect human beings in a multitude of other ways that, ultimately, negates freedom. How each philosopher interprets this manifestation of servitude in civil society reveals the intrinsic problems of liberty in civil society. Marx and Rousseau come to a similar conclusion on what is to be done to undo the fetters that society has brought upon humankind but their methods differ when deciding how the shackles should be broken. To understand how these two men’s views vary and fit together it must first be established what they mean by “freedom”.

    Read More

  • Kant vs. Mill: Human Rights and Utilitarianism

    1725 Words  | 4 Pages

    Fitzpatrick, J. R. (2006). John Stuart Mill's political philosophy: Balancing freedom and the collective good. London [u.a.: Continuum.

    Read More

  • Marx (The Communist Manifesto) and Rousseau

    2059 Words  | 5 Pages

    The political philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx examined the role that the state played and its relationship to its citizen’s participation and access to the political economy during different struggles and tumultuous times. Rousseau was a believer of the concept of social contract with limits established by the good will and community participation of citizens while government receives its powers given to it. Karl Marx believed that power was to be taken by the people through the elimination of the upper class bourgeois’ personal property and capital. While both philosophers created a different approach to establishing the governing principles of their beliefs they do share a similar concept of eliminating ownership of capital and distributions from the government. Studying the different approaches will let us show the similarities of principles that eliminate abuse of power and concentration of wealth by few, and allow access for all. To further evaluate these similarities, we must first understand the primary principles of each of the philosophers’ concepts.

    Read More

  • Comparing John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    2030 Words  | 5 Pages

    ...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.

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mills On Liberty Analysis

    654 Words  | 2 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Comparing Rousseau And Mill On Liberty

    1828 Words  | 4 Pages

    The term “civil or social liberties” is one that garners a lot of attention and focus from both Rousseau and Mill, although they tackle the subject from slightly different angles. Rousseau believes that the fundamental problem facing people’s capacity to leave the state of nature and enter a society in which their liberty is protected is the ability to “find a form of association that defends and protects the person and goods of each associate with all the common force, and by means of which each one, uniting with all, nevertheless obeys only himself and remains as free as before” (Rousseau 53). Man is forced to leave the state of nature because their resistance to the obstacles faced is beginning to fail (Rousseau 52). Mill does not delve as far back as Rousseau does and he begins his mission of finding a way to preserve people’s liberty in an organized society by looking to order of the ancient societies of Greece, Rome and England (Mill 5). These societies “consisted of a governing One, or a governing tribe or caste, who derived their authority from inheritance or conquest” (Mill 5). This sort of rule was viewed as necessary by the citizens but was also regarded as very dangerous by Mill as the lives of citizen’s were subject to the whims of the governing power who did not always have the best interests of everyone in mind. Mill proposes that the only time “power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (Mill 14) and this is one of the fundamental building blocks of Mill’s conception of liberty. Rousseau, on the other hand, places more importance on the concept of a civic liberty and duty whose virtue comes from the conformity of the particular will with the general will.

    Read More

  • A Critical Analysis of John Stuart Mill’s "On Liberty"

    1403 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

More about Mills and Rousseau on Contemporary Issues

Open Document