In the On liberty, Mill also highlights the aspect of individuality as one of the elements of well-being. John Stuart Mill points out the inherent value of individuality, since individuality is by definition the thriving of the human person through the higher pleasures. He argues that a safe society ought to attempt to promote individuality as it is the pre- requisite for creativity and diversity. Therefore Mill concludes that actions themselves don’t matter, rather the person behind the action and the action together are valuable. However on the limits to the authority of society over the individual, generally he holds that a person should be left as free to pursue his own interests as long as this does not harm the interests of others. In …show more content…
According to Ogunkoya (2011; 520), in the On Liberty Mill is concerned about the effect of democratization as a better government compared to the autocratic governments of the time of antiquity. He makes a brief survey of the changing roles of liberty as a political ideal or concept, and how it has been subjected to varied degrees of denial and persecution. But the coming of democracy has made the power of the rulers distinguishable from those of the people, and so, there arose the need to find a limit to the power of the ruler in order to prevent unnecessary infringement of the rulers on the liberty of the people. It has now been realized that the so-called majority rule is the rule of the people amongst themselves, and as such, it poses another problem that is, “the tyranny of the majority” according to …show more content…
Mill does not deny the possibility that there is a creator, but instead appeals to the reason of the reader to come to a conclusion based on evidence. If people in the world today and in the next century would adopt this practice, many ills would be remedied. According to Bodman and Tohid many laws in Islamic nations are based totally on the Koran, which is thought to be the word of God. Obviously, if skepticism toward religion was employed by Islamic people, some of the inequity in laws concerning women would be eliminated. In 1990, female Afghani refugees in Pakistan were subjected to the strict Islamic laws of that nation, which included purdah, or veiling. Women who were under these restrictions were not allowed to collect food rations in public, and if they had no male relative to do it for them, they simply went hungry. Also, if a woman had been raped during the war she was in danger of "honor killing" as the rape of the woman was considered dishonorable to her family. This kind of inhuman attitude toward women clearly shows the need for the adoption of philosophies toward women and religion like those of John Stuart
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
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
Nevertheless, while Utilitarianism is the key approach of Mill's politics, in On Liberty, Mill's ideal of utility departs from this discourse by disregarding the concept of natural rights. As mentioned earlier, individuality derives from personal development and self-realisation, 'grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive beings' (Mill,  2009, p.20), and this is the true utility of individuality. Thus, 'higher pleasures' (intellectual and moral) are valued more than base pleasures (physical or emotional), contributing to the society, and producing higher forms of happiness. In this sense, Mill 'left the true utilitarian spirit far behind' (Berkowitz, 200, p.148). Within his model, utility no longer accepts 'lower pleasures', embracing the most virtuous principles of individuality and liberty of
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.
The short essay On Liberty was written by an English philosopher by the name of John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). In this essay Mill basically talk about the system of utilitarianism to society and the state. Mill attempts to establish standards for the relationship between authority and liberty. He emphasizes the importance of individuality which he conceived as a prerequisite to the higher pleasures the “summum bonum” of Utilitarianism. Furthermore, Mill criticized the errors of past attempts to defend individuality where democratic ideals resulted in the "tyranny of the majority". Mill explains his concept of individual freedom of his ideas on history and on the state. On Liberty relies on the idea that society progresses from lower to higher stages and that this
John Stuart Mill included various sets of principles under “the appropriate region of liberty.” Of these principles, Mill listed the first principle such that they are encompassed in one category. According to Mill, the first principle included, “the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience, in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling... or theological.” Within this principle, individuals have the right of picking whatsoever they desire and minting a liberty that affect themself. Moreover, Mill included the liberty of expressing opinions, and letting individuals to do what they want; having in mind their action doesn’t harm other individuals. Furthermore, Mill also included that in a democrat and liberty states, individuals should not be “forced or deceived” . According to Mill, no society can be considered free if these principles are not followed. Thus, in order one to be a democrat and liberty state, citizens must have the choice to follow these principles.
Mill’s concept of liberty focused on the individuals and ”defend the rights of individuals which involved civil liberties, individuality and personal autonomy” (Gabriel, 2010). In Mill’s book itself ‘On Liberty’ pointed out a few thoughts and ideas regarding how liberty of individuals and the response from the author...
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.
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.
...ave the freedm to make mistakes and have discussions and debates in a healthy setting where others can learn from each other, and be able to raise their voice without having to be worried by the idea of being bullied. He strongly believed in having the freedom to develop your own personality and having the strength to make choices. Mills is only able to see progress in society if we enter a world of culture, free conformity, and harm. We must be given the right to free expression, freedom and the right to liberty without the fear of threat or being silenced. It’s because of these justifications that mill believes that mankind would not be justified in silencing an individual just like that one inidivdual, if given the power to do so, would not be justified in silencing all of mankind. Through these actions, we as humans will create the ultimate gaood for mankind.
Liberty – the state of being free from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority – is a defining element of American values. The right to liberty from tyranny was a central motivation that fueled the American Revolution and the subsequent founding of the United States. The implications of and limits to liberty have been continually debated and evolved since the revolutionary era and are perhaps more relevant than ever today. One prominent issue pertaining to liberty is gun control. Established by James Madison in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment gave citizens “the right to bear arms.” Since then, some lawmakers and citizens have sought to restrict the right to bear arms in an attempt to preserve safety for all. As a result of such
Chapter two of Mill’s On Liberty discusses the freedom of speech. Mill ultimately declares that a person is free to express his/her opinion as long as it does not cause physical harm to an individual’s person or possessions. This opinion can be “correct” or “wrong” and/or it can cause emotional harm; as long as Mill’s former harm principle is not violated, a person can have unlimited free speech. Mill explains that there is no possible way for one to know for certain that an opinion is true or false, only that one can work towards a more reasonable and logical opinion. Certainty means little if many people are certain that their differing opinions are true, and many opinions thought to be true have later been proven to be false such as slavery being accepted to it being inhumane. His strongest argument for this claim is that to suppress an opinion, one must be certain that it is incorrect and that the suppressor is infallible.
One of John Stuart Mill’s principles was that of individual freedom, which he speaks of in On Liberty. As we use our own thought to base our feelings of concepts and ideas, we are utilising our individual freedom. The freedom no one can take from us is the liberty to think as we would like. Expressing those thoughts, however, is a different story, for not everyone in this world is as free to express as they are to think without certain consequences. Our thoughts are the beginning of everything: from a simple thought grows an idea. It’s like having a seed to a plant and knowing what will grow of it, but not how it will affect those around it.
As you all know we are all different in some way or another. We all have different lifestyles, customs, skills, experiences, backgrounds, and personalities which makes every individual different, but have you ever wondered how the world would be if everyone thought of the same ideas, copied the actions of others, wear the same type of clothes, or even walked and talked the same way? Would this be a satisfying and happy lifestyle, will this bring about social progress? Or should we add uniqueness and originality in order to help everyone to progress in life? In the book “On Liberty”, Mill believes that we need individuality in order to be able to have social progress, if we don’t we will be in a standstill and remain during the time of the Stone Age. My report will focus on the reasons Mill believes individuality is essential for social progress.
An individual does not make a community, and a community does not make a society. In order to have a functioning and prosperous society, one must relinquish some free will in return for protection. According to John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, there are certain rights of the individual which the government may never possess. Centuries after the publication of Mill’s Essay, the court case Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegeta l , 546 U.S. 418 (2006) challenged the protective role of government against the free exercise of religion. In this instance, Mill would agree with the court ruling because, like his views concerning free exercise of will, government restriction and majority rule, both the court ruling and Mill’s ideals are concerned for the best interests of the individual rather than for the greater good of society.