John Stuart Mill discusses the conception of liberty in many ways. I’d like to focus of his ideas of the harm principle and a touch a little on his thoughts about the freedom of action. The harm principle and freedom on action are just two subtopics of Mill’s extensive thoughts about the conception on liberty. Not only do I plan to discuss and explain each of these parts on 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. My thoughts and feelings on Mill vary but I’d like to share my negative opinion towards the principle and hope to put it in a different perspective. The harm principle was published in Mill’s work Of Liberty in 1859. He states, “That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant (978).” This means that government is not able to control peoples’ actions unless they are causing harm to other individuals. 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 to 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 causi... ... middle of paper ... ... which fits into the discussion is the law of wearing a seatbelt. Not wearing a seatbelt while in a car is a good way of possibly causing harm to yourself. And according to the Harm Principle this should be allowed because you, as the person in the car, are deciding if you are going to put on your seatbelt. If the car were to crash it would have been your decision to not wear the seatbelt, so how can this be a government law? Putting or not putting on a seatbelt should be your decision because technically you are not causing harm to others, just possibly to yourself. If putting on a seatbelt is a law, why is a law against suicide not established, is it not basically the same theory. Allowing people to cause harm to themselves even if allowed by the Harm Principle does not only hurt the person doing the harm but also others around him, even if it is unintentionally.
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.
Clarifying several points about Mill’s opinion on the principle of liberty will give supporting evidence that unless the harm to others can be averted, any reason for the limitation of liberty would not exist.
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
Arguably England’s most influential philosopher of the 19th century was none other than John Stuart Mill, a main proponent to utilitarianism — an ethical theory placing emphasis on the consequences of our actions. The ultimate goal of utilitarianism is to provide a scientific approach to decision making, while simultaneously seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. As a young woman pondering the right course of action for my future, Mill’s contributions to utilitarianism are both practical and intriguing to someone in my situation.
In John Stuart Mill’s literature (575-580), he describes a system of ethics which he dubs as Utilitarianism. Mill’s Utilitarianism is unique because it is a Consequentialist theory – it focuses on the consequences of things, rather than individual processes involved. In other words, Mill argues that, for an action to be morally correct, it must solely contribute towards benefitting the greater good and maximizing humanity’s happiness. I argue that this ethical theory is flawed and cannot be used as a standard to gauge the morality of our actions because, since Utilitarianism is so entrenched on the outcomes that are produced, it has the potential to sanction clearly wrong actions, so long as they promote the general welfare. In this critique,
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
Kant and Mill both try to decide whether the process of doing something is distinguished as right or wrong. They explain that right or wrong is described as moral or immoral. In the writings of Grounding for the Metaphysics of morals Kant says that you only need to “act only according to the maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant, 30). Kant then states that a practical principal for how far the human will is concerned is thereby a categorical imperative, that everyone then is necessarily an end, and the end in itself establishes an objective principal of the will and can aid as a practical law (36). Mill on the other hand has the outlook that the greatest happiness principle, or utilitarianism, is that happiness and pleasure are the freedom from pain (Mill, 186). With these principles we will see that Kant and Mill correspond and contradict each other in their moral theories.
John Stuarts most famous essay, On Liberty came out in 1859. His father, James Mill, who was said to be a strict Utilitarian, raised him. Mill had a difficult childhood; he suffered a nervous breakdown when he was 21 when we first began to question his beliefs. He later on continued to struggle with his sense that Utilitarianism was too unemotional and that it failed to capture or understand the higher pleasures. Thus where On Liberty comes into play, this essay was established to broaden the meaning of utility and show that Utilitarianism can in fact provide a strong pr...
The perception of liberty has been an issue that has bewildered the human race for a long time. It seems with every aspiring leader comes a new definition of liberty, some more realistic than others. We have seen, though, that some tend to have a grasp of what true liberty is. One of these scholars was the English philosopher and economist J.S. Mill. Mill's On Liberty provided a great example of what, in his opinion, liberty is and how it is to be protected. In this essay we will examine Mill's ideals concerning liberty and point out a few things he may not have been realistic about.
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.
"On Liberty by John Stuart Mill." Utilitarianism : Past, Present and Future. Web. 26 Nov. 2011. .
...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’s On Liberty and John Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government are influential literary works while which outlining the theoretical framework of each thinkers optimal state propose two conflicting visions of the very essence of man and his freedom. Locke and Mill have completely different views when it comes to how much freedom man should have in political society because they have obtained different views about man’s potential of inheriting pure or evil behavior.
The main idea behind the utilitarianism is that all actions are done to bring about the maximum amount of happiness. One could argue that often times what brings happiness for one person can hurt another person. However, Mill’s idea focuses on the maximum happiness of the world at large and not just that of a specific person. Mill’s utilitarianism does not include happiness of a person that results in a general decrease of the happiness of society as a whole. Therefore an action can be labeled as right if it promotes general happiness of a society and wrong if it reverses the happiness of a society. What brings about happiness is pleasure and what reverses happiness is pain.
Nonetheless, negative freedom does not mean that individuals should have absolute and unrestricted freedom. Classical liberals, such as J.S. Mill, believe that if freedom is unlimited it can lead to “license”, namely the right to harm others or to infringe their “natural” rights to “life, liberty and property”. In this way, Classical Liberals often support minimal restrictions on the individual so as to prevent individuals from inflicting harm upon each other. However, it should be borne in mind that Classical Liberals do not accept any constraints upon the individual that prevent him from damaging himself, physically or mentally, since the individual still remains sovereign. Such a view of freedom means that classical liberals generally advocate the establishment of a minimal or “nightwatch” state, whose role is limited to the protection of individuals from other individuals.