1: Summarize briefly the main points of Mills’ theory on liberty
Despite recognising the need for strong governance in a society, Mill saw individual liberty as important. In his publication On Liberty, Mill argued there should be boundaries regarding the level of influence the state can exert over individuals private lives. This can be problematic, however, as these boundaries are rarely clearly defined. Can a state impinge on the rights of certain citizen’s for the good of others?
Mills understood that any one catch-all theory on liberty may not be useful, as societies all over the world have different values. Therefor Mill set out to create a principle that takes into account the values of the society to which it is being applied. Mill
…show more content…
He believed an individual has the freedom to think freely and discuss their ideas with others. Using the executions of Socrates and Jesus Christ as an example, Mill states that no society should hold its beliefs to be authoritative.
2. Why is this theory important for the development of democracy?
Although Mill was a great proponent of individual liberty, he also championed democracy. He held liberal and representative democracy in high esteem. Although he accepted that a democratically elected government would limit certain rights of the individual, he felt this governance was important for the development of individual liberty. He felt that individuals could only thrive in a society which protected their individual rights. In this way, citizens could exercise their liberty without interfering with the freedom of others.
Mill felt a liberal democracy would lead to not only enhanced individual liberty, but more efficient government with a strong sense of accountability. Mill was a critic of other forms of government however. He was wary of the “absolute monarchy”, fearing that such a system lends itself to abuse of political power. Absolute power in the hands of a sovereign would hinder individual liberty, and limit the ability of an individual to elect his or her own
…show more content…
The idea that one should never act in such a way to harm another is an honourable one no doubt, but is it practical? Much of the confusion stems from the ambiguity of the word harm. It is quite clear that something such as physical violence could harm another, and justifiably violates the harm principle. When we look at something like censorship, however, the ability of the harm principle to deal with situations is unclear. Say someone produces material promoting a new religion. Mill’s ideas surrounding freedom of thought and expression would dictate that this practice is easily justifiable. However, if this material was indoctrinating people, could it be argued it was causing harm? If such a publication is blocked, is harm then being caused to those who wish it to be published> It can be argued that any action, however insignificant it seems, has a knock on effect for someone else and as such has the capability of causing
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
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
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
Something that many countries during his time really didn’t offer. Mill constantly preached the beauty in having a society that offered freedom to people, that freedom would in turn give them power to buy, sell, and trade; creating a better and more stable economy all over. Just like the United States of America works to keep an open and capitalistic economic system, so Mill worked to spread and make truth about the freedoms of purchases. But much like the USA contradicts itself with statement of guaranteed freedoms so did Mill himself contradict himself. Mill was someone that believe in inheritance tax, mandatory educational standards, and above all contract and property right not being included in freedoms offered.
Wright Mill’s, regarding the fact that freedom, wealth, and equality are things that are not properly exercised in the “new society of America”. “We confront there a new kind of social structure, which embodies elements and tendencies of all modern society, but in which they have assumed a more naked and flamboyant prominence”. Essentially Mills is stating that the methods in which we as a society used to interpret politics, economics, etc. cannot be applied anymore due to the fact that modern society has evolved so much. Due to the fact that in modern day, the upper class elites have the largest influence on how essentially all aspects of society are run, it disregards the lower class’s abilities to exercise their rights to freedom and
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.
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
John Stuart Mills wrote his philosophical ideas in On Liberty. The purpose of his work was to explain liberty and its limits in society. He claimed the foundation of liberty existed within the harm principle. The principle had two rules. First, individuals are free to do as they please, but can not harm others.
John Stuart Mill defines liberty, as a limitation of power; “By liberty, was meant protection against the tyranny of the political rulers. The rulers were conceived (except in some of the popular governments of Greece) as in a necessarily antagonistic position to the people whom they ruled.” (John Stuart Mill “On Liberty” Pg. 29) This limit on power is what he refers to as civil liberty; the limitation is put into play for the people, Mill acknowled...
As a consequence, it makes people feel that if they do not fit themselves in the system, they may lose their benefit. In Mill’s opinion, Keynesian economics emphasises independence for people in economy. Nevertheless, this necessitates dependence in the social arena, which results in neo-liberal bigness. Moreover, these people are misled; they lost their freedom and self consciousness in the bigness. Mills categorised freedom into four dissimilar ideas; however, there are some concepts that conflict with one
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...
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.