Majorities tend to prevent any opportunity that a minority group might have to gain support for a contradicting opinion. It is incredibly easy for members of society to abandon their beliefs in the midst of an overpowering majority. This process leads to an unequal society in which the rights of the people are restricted. In the essays, On Liberty and On Representative Government, written by John Stuart Mill, there is a concern for the "tyranny of the majority." He expresses his concern in, On Liberty, by supporting an increase in individual liberties. It is expressed again in, On Representative Government, by promoting a "true democracy." Mill proposes remedies for combating this "tyranny of the majority," and further discusses the compatibility of those remedies and the effect they will have on society.
Mill addresses the `tyranny of the majority' as the absolute power being vested into just 51% of a society. This would cause the rights of the minority to be overlooked, and become non-issues.
`The majority, being satisfied with the ways of mankind as they now are (for it is they who make them what they are), cannot comprehend why those ways should not be good enough for everybody; and what is more, spontaneity forms no part of the ideal of the majority of moral and social reformers, but it is rather looked on with jealousy, as a troublesome and perhaps rebellious obstruction to the general acceptance of what these reformers, in their own judgment, think would be best for mankind.' (On Liberty 54)
So, if men were corrupt, all they would need to make corruption socially acceptable is 51% of the people to agree with them. All uncorrupt men would live in fear or silence, since their 49% of the society could not overt...
... middle of paper ...
...the essays On Liberty and On Representative Government are quite compatible. They are independent thoughts that are most beneficial when exercised at the same time. The simultaneity of the responses creates maximum efficiency resulting in a utilitarian outcome. As long as people educate themselves and form individual notions, everyone can coexist in a well-balanced and developed society. "If it were felt that the free development of individuality is one of the leading essentials of well-being; that it is not only a co-ordinate element with all that is designated by the terms civilization, instruction, education, culture, but is itself a necessary part and condition of all those things, there would danger that liberty should be undervalued and the adjustment of the boundaries between it and social control would present no extraordinary difficulty" (On Liberty 54).
Lani Guinier, in her essay titled “Tyranny of the Majority” (1944), justifies her political ideas and explains that as a result of these ideas, she has explored decisionmaking rules that prevent The Majority from “exercise[ing] power unfairly or tyrannically.” She supports her justification by incorporating childlike anecdotal stories, quoting loved American patriots, and creating conceptual analogies. Guinier’s purpose is to convince her opponents, as well as Americans with moderate political orientations, that her views and ideas aren’t too radical, in order to convince them that in order to make America a “true democracy,” they must consider her methods and strategies for desegregating The Majority. She adopts a patriotic, idealistic tone
Jefferson’s language in the Declaration of Independence shows clear influence from Locke and his theory of Life, Liberty, and Property. Locke’s idea of government is one that sets out to protect these rights and once a government becomes more destructive than useful it is the right of the people to dissolve the government and start over from scratch. It can be seen that Jefferson’s view of government, through his criticisms toward the British Parliament, are in direct alignment with Locke’s.
When looking at the Declaration of Independence and the justifications which Jefferson used in order to encourage the dissolve of the ties between the United Colonies and Great Britain, it becomes apparent how much of the theories of John Locke that Jefferson used as the basis for his argument. Focusing particularly on the second paragraph of the Declaration, the arguments for the equality of each man and the formation and destruction of governments come almost directly from Locke's Second Treatise of Government. The other arguments in the Declaration of Independence deal primarily with each citizen's rights and the natural freedoms of all men, two areas that Locke also spent much time writing on.
By its use of majority rule, America’s democracy models a collectivist society. Take elections for an example. Although, Americans vote individually, the decision ultimately is based on the country as a whole. The use of majority rule relates to the representation of the ideas of the masses rather than the ideas of the individuals. As expected, there is always a number of people who disagree with the majority's opinions. Disagreement is frowned upon, which Andrew P. Naplitano highlights in his book, It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom. Due to America's use of the majority rule, this title often holds true.
The character of the United States is illuminated by the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson wanted to build a government where people are free and where the government “derives its power from the consent of the governed and it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it” (Jefferson, 247). T...
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...
For Mill, the freedom that enables each individual to explore his or her own particular way of life is essential for a generous and diverse development of humanity. The only source of potential within society to further continue human development is the spontaneity or creativity that lies within each individual. Mill has a utilitarian view on freedom. He was especially keen on individual liberty because it allowed the greatest measure of happiness. His concern is not to declare liberty as a natural right but to rather set out the appropriate constraints within ‘Civil or Social liberty’. Civil liberty is defined as the limit society can exert its legitimate power over each individual and social liberty has much to do with a political principle
John Mill’s On Liberty seeks to expound on how individuals and the society can exist as liberal entities without infringing on each other’s rights. Liberty is the condition of being free within the society, that is free from any form of restriction inflicted by authority. He argues that individual freedom is the basis of democracy where people exercise their own free will (Mill 2005). He also rejects the idea of social contract where individuals comply with society for them to gain social benefit (Mill 2005). It is generally thought that social development can only occur if certain constraints are placed on individual liberty. But the contrary is also true, if restriction are placed on people’s freedom, it becomes difficult for them to thrive
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.
Fitzpatrick, J. R. (2006). John Stuart Mill's political philosophy: Balancing freedom and the collective good. London [u.a.: Continuum.
The premise of Mills’ theory revolves around a group at the top of the hierarchy called the power elite. This is a group that consists of military officials, top government representatives, and the top corporate executives. Underneath this authoritative group is a middle class, or a middle level of power. These are the people that work in Congress and other middle level interest groups. Below them are the masses, a group that possesses little to no power in society and are essentially manipulated by those above them. The power elite makes all of the important public decisions, especially those dealing with foreign policies. The power elite is united not only because of their communal desire for wealth and dominance, but also their mutual religious beliefs, education, and other social interests amongst their institutions. If we accept this theory of a small, all-powerful force of government, than democracy in society would either be very weak or nonexistent.
...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.
The majority and the minority bring forth change in policy in a democratic society. Majority rule means that, if there were an over whelming amount of support on a issue their voices would be heard by the government. Our government is run on a majority rule. People in our society elect officials and put their faiths in them to make their choices.
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
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.