There will never be one ultimate definition of the word ‘freedom’. To each individual, freedom can mean many different rights and privileges, as well as protections. Depending on both the government of a state, in addition to the executed power of the state, freedoms can be defined by both laws/rules and the functioning nature of one’s surroundings. I have come to define freedom by what I am allowed to do, or the options of actions that I am legally allowed to take. According to John Stuart Mill, I emphasize and value his ‘positive liberty’ more than his ‘negative liberty’. To me, liberty and freedom are very similar. Having the right to do something is extremely important. What is important, yet not as crucial, is the limitation of others’ rights to ensure citizens of peace and fairness.
In John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, both ‘negative liberty’ and ‘positive liberty’ are presented. Positive liberties are those of opportunity for action. Negative liberties are the protection of others at the cost of restraining, or holding back, one’s right to certain actions. Mill emphasizes taking advantage of one’s positive liberties while presenting the existence of negative liberties. By pursuing one’s own interests in a manner that is legal and not harmful to others, Mill’s positive liberties can lead to positive consequences for the individual, and/or the community (state) in which he/she is a part of.
“Harmful” is where the grey area is created. What may seem “harmful” to one person may be perfectly reasonable and civil to another. I believe that harmful includes any sort of physical changes/damages that the receiver does not consent to, or clearly want to have happen. Going from there, if one’s actions will illegally harm a...
... middle of paper ...
...ight to practice a religion. Locke believes that government was created by necessity to ensure that people respected the property of others. “So that God, by commanding to subdue, gave authority so far to appropriate: and the condition of human life, which requires labour and materials to work on, necessarily introduces private possessions” (Locke 35). I agree with Locke’s emphasis for government being needed in such situations as it is today. However, I do not like the idea of relying on external sources for justice if I were to be the victim of stolen or destroyed property.
Overall, Locke’s decisions seem to align with what I would seem necessary for a functioning state: a government whose sole role is to ensure that justice is done for the people. His roots in religion are what concern me when it would come to laws where religion and civility may crossover.
John Locke, an English philosophe, like many other philosophes of his time worked to improve society by advocating for the individual rights of people. John Locke strongly believed in more rights for the people and was against oppression. In his book, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Locke stated, “(W)e must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose [manage] of their possessions . . .” (Document A). Locke means every man is naturally equal, no one was created better and he has certain guaranteed rights. This helps society because it would deny a monarch to strip a person of their guaranteed rights and it would make the monarch less powerful and his/her power would be given to the people. The greatest change to government Locke states as necessary, “(W)hen the government is dissolved [ended], the people are at liberty to provide themselves, by erecting a new legislative [lawma...
He wanted the government to protect individual rights and liberties. If the government did not protect them people could rebel against the government. He “believed that people were entitled to unalienable rights: life, liberty, and property.” (Khatri 2016) Locke wanted the people to be treated equally to one another. He also wanted to white males to own their own property. All Locke wanted was to have a good government and not have people rebel against the government
Review this essay John Locke – Second treatise, of civil government 1. First of all, John Locke reminds the reader from where the right of political power comes from. He expands the idea by saying, “we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit.” Locke believes in equality among all people. Since every creature on earth was created by God, no one has advantages over another.
Locke believed that people created governments by freely consenting to those governments and that governments should serve citizens, not hold them in subjection.1
What John Locke was concerned about was the lack of limitations on the sovereign authority. During Locke’s time the world was surrounded by the monarch’s constitutional violations of liberty toward the end of the seventeenth century. He believed that people in their natural state enjoy certain natural, inalienable rights, particularly those to life, liberty and property. Locke described a kind of social contract whereby any number of people, who are able to abide by the majority rule, unanimously unite to affect their common purposes. The...
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
...w that property should belong to anyone who has the power to possess it. The overall main criticism against Locke is that he is a wishful thinker instead of a critical thinker.
Freedom is having the right to own, act, think, and speak without any restrictions from the outside. Ever since the New World was discovered, people have been fighting for their independence till this day. People of other colors and race have been forced to do labor without their consent. Today, those same people have been blamed or accused of crimes that were not committed by them despite of being free. Freedom has different meanings and those meanings change overtime; however sometimes the significance of freedom does not change.
Freedom is the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. In America there is numerous of choices that someone may make on a daily basis. If someone were allowed to make their own choices and were being told what to do; then they would not be free. When someone is allowed to speak when they want to, and say what they want; such as their opinion or view of something. Being allowed to have a right to speak is one of the most important characteristics of being an American. Thinking and stating your opinion in any predicament it a strong part in being a citizen because people in the United States are known for being able to think in their own ways. Freedom can stretch too many things such as being able to do as they please, they are not forced into doing anything that someone may want. The citizens of the United States are not made to do anything that one may not want to do; like
We use the terms 'freedom' and 'liberty' in everyday language without giving much thought to a detailed description of the concept to which these terms refer. It is possible, to a certain degree, to examine why we see freedom as morally good, also without completely defining it. The investigation into a definition of freedom wi...
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...
According to sir ‘Isaiah Berlin’, the concept of’ liberty ‘ can be studied by dividing it into the two parts . The first one is the ‘positive liberty’ and the second one is ‘negative liberty’. Isaiah Berlin is not the only one who was researching on the topic liberty. There were detractors like Charles Taylor. Isaiah Berlin started his trek for the research on the topic of liberty from history, or we can say he used the theories of earlier political philosophers named Socrates, Plato, Thomas Hobbes , John Locke, Adam Smith and many more. Isaiah Berlin confused himself between then and now views of the liberty, forcing him to study the topic under the two parts FREEDOM FROM HUMAN INTERFERENCE and FREEDOM TO DO AS I PLEASE WITHIN A CIVIL SOCIETY.
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.
When referring to freedom these words are often associated with freedom: Liberty, independence, sovereignty, autonomy, privilege, immunity, and indulgence. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and justice. Independence is granted by freedom in the sense that an outside party does not control you. To gratify ones desires by whichever ways they choose is freedom through indulgence. Privileges are g ranted through freedom. In some countries the dictator or ruler makes choices for their people on regards to what profession they shall have or to what religion they shall worship. In the United States we have special privileges that let the people of the country decide on their own religion and professions.
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.