Do you agree with Mills 'one very simple principle' (On Liberty) explain your position. Before we begin to get to grips with this question. We must in the first instance define its key terms both to contextualise our understanding as well as to set parameters to our answer, throughout this essay, it shall be argued that I do agree in part with John Stuart Mills 'one very simple principle' with the exception of a few contentious areas where I find the arguments made by mill contradictory, particularly with regards to the views he extols on slavery. in course of this essay I shall expound my reasons for doing so, drawing upon historical arguments from mill himself as well as more contemporary arguments drawn from liberal political philosophy. …show more content…
Then that individual must be left to his own devices, mill makes this apparent when he states "the individual is not accountable to society for his actions, in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself" it is also crucial to our understanding at this point to mention that while mill does not contend that all opinions and schools of thought are of equal worth either morally or intellectually, he strongly purports the notion of freedom of speech, and states that individuals or groups of individuals also should be allowed to voice opinions and promote ideas which they believe in despite how unpopular they may prove to be among general society, to the extent that those who hold such opinions are in the minority, mill illustrates this when he 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 silencing mankind” this touches one another key area of Millean scholarship that is crucial to our understanding of mills 'one very simple principle' and that is the notion of the tyranny of the majority which is a scenario …show more content…
Perpetuating the idea of community and illustrating why acts of harm committed by individuals even towards themselves must be prohibited due to the knock on effect they may have, mill himself further purports this idea when he states "“it is impossible for a person to do anything seriously or permanently hurtful to himself, without mischief reaching at least to his near connections.” In accordance with mills previous applications of harm it is reasonable for us to assume at this point that this premise also extended to property which In this context would have been seen as an extension of an individuals person, and mill himself purports this notion when he states “If he injures his property, he does harm to those who “directly or indirectly derived support from it, and usually diminishes, by a greater or less amount, the general resources of the community” It is also pertinent at this point to mention that while mill never gives any concrete definition as to what means by harm, and uses varying terms interchangeably, it is reasonable for us to assume at this point that harm in this sense can be
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
Mill begins “On Liberty” by asserting the principle that we should never regulate the actions of others, except if those actions harm others. He goes on to suggest that we should not restrict speech, even when we find it false. What seems odd about this is that Mill is a utilitarian, which means that the rightness or wrongness of a policy or action depends on its consequences. Clearly, some speech does an awful lot of harm and not much good, so how can Mill hold the view that we should never censor? (Your answer should include Mill’s discussion of why censorship “robs the human race” and you should cover both cases in which the minority view is false and when it’s
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.
***Mill spends a substantial amount of time exhibiting his harm principle by saying, “that actions can only be punished when they harm others.”2 I feel that the most primitive and obvious issue is whether Mill’s harm princi...
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...
In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill speaks on matters concerning the “struggle between authority and liberty” and determining how the government should be balanced with the will of the common people. To aid these balances, Mill lays out indisputable freedoms for everyone including freedoms of thought and speech. He stresses that these freedoms are justified as long as they abstain from harm onto other people, but words have been known to hurt or offend. Hateful and unpopular thoughts can be ignored by common people just as they can say and believe whatever they wish to, but in the creation of laws that do affect everyone, leaders cannot discriminate against hearing any sort of opinion because doing so would increase the possibility of tyranny against a minority of any kind Mill wants to prevent. Every single opinion, no matter how unpopular, deserves to be heard by people of power, for even a thought of the unpopular or the minority could provide a shred of truth when leaders make decisions to better a majority of lives.
Wright, John Samuel Fletcher. Liberty in Key Works of John Locke and John Stuart Mill. Thesis Deakin University, 1995.
Philosophy has offered many works and debates on morality and ethics. One of these works is the concept of utilitarianism. One of the most prominent writers on the theory of utilitarianism is John Stuart Mill. He suggests that utilitarianism may be the guide for morality. His writing on utilitarianism transcends through the present in relation to the famous movie The Matrix. In the movie, people live in a virtual reality where they are relatively happy and content and the real world is filled with a constant struggle to survive. The movie revolves around Neo, who tries to free people from the virtual world in which they live. In light of utilitarianism, freeing these people would be morally wrong. In this essay, I will first explain John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism and some objections it faces. I will then talk about utilitarianism’s relation to The Matrix and why it would be morally wrong to free the people and subject them to the real world.
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).
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.
Mill operates a theory of “fictional man”, by saying that we should abstract certain economic motives, meaning those of maximizing wealth subject to the constraints of a subsistence income and the desire for leisure, while allowing for the presence of noneconomic motives even in those areas of life that are included in the ordinary field of economics. Moreover, he emphasizes the fact that the economic field is only a part of the whole scene of human behavior. Mill’s essay characterizes political economy as “essentially an abstract science” that employs “the method a priori”. The method a priori is contrasted with the method a posteriori. “By the method a posteriori we mean that which requires, as the basis of its conclusions, not experience merely, but specific experience.
In On Liberty by John Stuart Mills, he presents four arguments regarding freedom of expression. According to Mills, we should encourage free speech and discussion, even though it may oppose a belief you deem to be true. Essentially, when you open up to other opinions, Mills believes you will end up closer to the truth. Instead of just accepting something as true because you are told, Mills argues that accepting both sides will make you understand why your side is true or false. Mills is persuasive in all four of his claims because as history would show, accepting both sides of an argument is how society improves.
He also states that if you are causing harm to yourself, the government shall not involve themselves. Different forms of harm are applicable, such as physical harm, property damage, and emotional harm. Mill also explains that harm, in whatever form to others, can be the result of an action or the result of inaction. Both of these are a violation of the harm principle and the government has the right to step in; it does not matter whether harm was caused by the result of your action or inaction to the situation. The harm principle’s purpose is to be able to only let government interfere with human society when one is causing harm to another, therefore limiting government control....
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.