We as a community and society cannot stand together without first coming to an agreement about what is , and what is not, necessary to survival. Any nation or state that is recognized as such must first have established order. Governments established, safety provided, and law upheld. Without this as the bedrock and foundation, civilization and society would collapse. Not to necessarily say that it would be the worst thing in the world. To each their own perspective and opinion, but our current way of living is made by way of a connection between all aspects of law, order, and security. Without taking an accurate poll it would still be most people’s opinion that security is an important aspect in almost every person’s life. To live without an
John Stuart Mill’s philosophical writings have been a staple in today’s world. His concepts ranging from utilitarianism to harm have been instrumental in the discussion on how best to help people as a whole. Speaking on laws and procedures within government that should be creating the most happiness and good for the whole of the community. John Stuart Mill also has spoken to the morality of the governing laws stressing the spirit of the law being sometimes just as important as the law itself. Many of his writings engage the public to discuss the involvement of laws in people’s lives. should go. These men were John Stuart Mill with the concept of legal paternalism The first of John Stuart Mill’s concepts to discuss is of The principle of legal paternalism. This principle justifies state coercion to protect individuals from self-inflicted harm. A discussion on the “line in the sand”
An example of this, for instance, is the issue of whether homosexual acts should be subject to criminal sanctions. A problem in countries of very conservative backgrounds. Russia in particular, who has leveled legislation in order to uphold these conservative values. Liberals hold that if men choose to have sex with men or women with women, that is their business, not the law. Why should it be? I Since sexuality should have nothing to do with the public life of a person this view is argued that those who find homosexuality offensive are not harmed by it. In no capacity does what is done behind closed doors affect other people. This sentiment is not perfect in certain ways that harm can be defined, but it is safe to say no one was physically hurt by this In my personal opinion there is no way that you cannot have both the harm principle and the principle of legal paternalism justify laws. On the suggestion that only the harm principle may justify laws I certainly cannot agree. For one thing the problem with solely using the harm principle is that the definition of harms is too loose. A better word for it would be VAGUENESS. We just cannot simply operate in black and white specifics when dealing with what we call harm. Even when looking through John Stuart Mill’s works It's notable that no definition of 'Harm' is to be found. In John Stuart Mill’s book, On Liberty, with very few
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
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.
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” Thomas Jefferson pg 9 cjt To convict an individual because proper consideration was not taken will stir up social unrest rather than it’s initial intent, when he or she who has committed the crime is not punished for their doings can cause for a repetition and even collaboration with other’s for a similar or greater crime. Is public order important? Public order is not only important but is an absolute necessity for the Individuals within the society to know that all efforts are being made to ensure the safety of our citizens in order for the very structure of our nation to stand erect. Without order, we are prone to experience oppression by our neighboring nations and leaving our state of independence to depend upon the governance of another, broadcasting this nation as not only unqualified but also unable to even protect ourselves from foreign threats....
people’s overall happiness and this is what God desires, so in fact this theory includes God
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...
In utilitarianism John Stuart Mill introduced the idea of pleasures. All people seek to satisfy their desires, needs and happiness that mean prolonged and continuous pleasure. While utilitarianism is a theory directed against egoism which is opposes to the satisfaction of personal interest. The allowance of pleasure in every situation is determined by whether people contribute to the achievement of a higher purpose or general happiness. Morality is defined by Mill as rule by leading a man in his actions, through the observaing of which is delivered to all mankind the existence of the most free from suffering and intense pleasures.
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.
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.
Mill, John S. The Basic Writings of John Stuart Mill. New York, New York: Modern Library, 2002. Print.
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.
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 discusses the concept of liberty in many ways. I’d like to focus on his ideas of the harm principle and touch a little on his thoughts about the freedom of action. The harm principle and freedom of action are just two subtopics of Mill’s extensive thoughts on the concept of liberty. Not only do I plan to discuss and explain each of these parts of the conception of liberty, but I also plan to discuss my thoughts and feelings. I have a few disagreements with Mill on the harm principle; they will be stated and explained.
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.