John Stuart Mill’s treatise On Liberty defines liberty as the ability to behave however one desires, with the condition one does not harm another individual (Mill 11). However, the definition of harm is vast, and could range from murder or rape to insulting an individual’s feelings. To account for this, Mill specifies what constitutes harm. In this essay, I will consider Mill’s interpretation and definition of harm. Mill argues harm is unwelcome and discernible damage against an individual, through injury, imprisonment, monetary loss, or slander (Mill 81). This definition goes beyond simple physical injury however, and includes injuries caused by failure to act and lack of responsibility in order to fulfill one’s duties. Mill also defines harm by what it is not: offended morals. Offended morals are instances in which an individual protests actions that do not affect her under the assumption these actions are harmful to this individual’s morals. For example, an individual could argue gay marriage should not be allowed because it violates the sanctity of marriage, which offends Christian morals. Following this, I will elaborate on why his limitations are viable, however his inclusion of responsibility is not. Mill’s definition is not viable because it is unrealistic to hold individuals accountable for failure to act in all situations. Following this I will examine how accounting for human error and varying levels of harm can make Mill’s definition more practical.
Mill defines harm as “acts injurious to others” such as false actions or physical injury (Mill 81). His definition initially appears straightforward; any action that may cause an individual pain or inconvenience harms them (Mill 11). This includes mental and physical pain,...
... middle of paper ...
...m must be more specific in order to be viable. His restrictions on insulted morals, while they assist with the overall viability of his argument, cannot create viability on its own. Through responsibility, the ways an individual’s actions can harm another member of the society becomes too vague and ultimately becomes illogical. The definition must be more specific, and must account for human fallacy and exceptions. Mill does not permit exceptions, however harm is subjective and there may be scenarios he does not consider. In order to become viable, his argument requires further specification. With this further refining, however, it becomes a logical method of looking at liberty.
Works Cited
Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. The Basic Writings of John Stuart Mill: On Liberty, The Subjection of Women, and Utilitarianism. New York: Modern Library, 2002. 3-119. Print.
John Stuart Mill was one of the most influential Western philosopher. At the time, most Western philosophers had the tendency to look down on women. They believed that women are too emotional and are incapable of being rational. However, Mill was an exception to this as he was an advocate for gender equality (Utilitarian Ethics). He is also known for his work in Utilitarianism, which focuses on the consequence of an action and whether that action benefit a greater number of people (Utilitarian Ethics).
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.
expediency is actually harmful. Mill would argue that hurting society is not truly expedient, and
Winthrop, John. “Liberty is the proper end and object of authority”. Our Nations Archive .
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
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
Mill, John S. The Basic Writings of John Stuart Mill. New York, New York: Modern Library, 2002. Print.
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 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...
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.