Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Utilitarianism in political decision making
Utilitarianism political ideology essay
Utilitarianism political ideology essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Utilitarianism in political decision making
Political theorists build their ideas upon past theories. Jon Stuart Mill learned from Jeremy Bentham, the father of utilitarianism. Even though regarded highly revolutionary at the time, Mill derived his ideas from utilitarianism thinking. Milton Friedman, one of more prominent neo-liberalism thinkers, was no different. Friedman was largely inspired by Mill and other classical liberalism thinkers when he sought to develop the idea that would address the growth of New Deal policies. The language of Friedman differs from that of Mill because Friedman lived a century ahead of Mill; however, Friedman’s idea does not derive much from Mill’s in its basic principle.
Friedman and Mill’s idea do have some differences, although they are relatively minor. Differences came largely from Friedman adopting classical liberalism into the modern political and economic landscape. Just as socialists incorporated their utopian ideal of a classless society into their ideas, Friedman incorporated his utopian ideal of natural rights – that everyone is entitled to natural rights - to make his idea of a limited government more appealing to those disillusioned with Keynesian, New Deal policies. Since a government has no authority to regulate a nature, Friedman claims laws should protect, not interfere upon individual’s rights. Friedman’s reasoning differs from that of Mill, although both share in a principle of limited government. On his book On Liberty, Mill relies on a utilitarian logic to advance his argument for a limited government. Mill argues an individual with his self-interest in the matter can conduct a business better than a government which has no self-interest because an individual is likely to pay greater attention to a business than a g...
... middle of paper ...
...
Mill and Friedman, while a century apart, are remarkably similar in their principle. Both advocate for a limited government and a competition-based economy. Both believe competition should be fair and played by the rule interpreted and enforced by the government. They believe in the government’s power to control the monetary supply as well as the power to control some monopoly if the resource is essential. Finally, despite their skepticism against the paternalistic government, both voice their opinion that madmen and children should be governed in a paternalistic way by the government because they are not fully capable of making responsible decisions. Friedman, while adopting Mill’s policy to fit into the modern political and economic landscape, differ from Mill largely only in details and semantics; Friedman retain most of principles shaped by Mill a century ago.
...y new ideas, presidents after him felt they had a lot to live up to. Franklin D. Roosevelt “cast a long shadow on successors” with his New Deal program. Conservatives were constantly worried about the loss of their capitalist economy, but it is possible that Roosevelt’s greatest New Deal achievement is the fact he never allowed America to completely abandon democracy or turn to socialism or communism. Many New Deal programs fixed economic problems but did not completely solve social ones surrounding equality and discrimination. New Deal programs took radical steps while moving toward government regulation and intervention causing conservatives to fear concentrated power, but the steps and transformations Roosevelt made while in office preserved conservatives’ need of capitalism and democracy in government, defining the New Deal as both radical and conservative.
Keynes’ work: The Means to Prosperity, and The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money created modern macroeconomics and influenced countries during the 1930s and 1940s towards interventionist policy and economic nationalism (Yergin, 1998.) His ideology and work led him to orchestrate the Bretton Woods conference in 1944 which, “contributed greatly to the golden age of controlled capitalism (where) even the most conservative political parties in Europe and the United States embraced some version of state interventionism” (Steger, 2003.) The Bretton Woods regime fell during the early 1970’s but Keynes economic ideology would not be abandoned until the adoption of Reagan’s Neoliberalism and the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s (Steger, 2003.) Keynesian economic ideology was the predominating economic theory during Gilpin’s life and would contribute greatly to his claim of world economic nationalism.
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
When the topic of American economics arises, the infamous Robber Barons of the 19th Century often springs to mind. They are often glorified as "Captains of Industry" for their money making strategies and enterprising methods. Those who hold this view probably do not know the evils of the laissez-faire capitalism in which the Robber Barons believed and participated. They wanted an unrestricted system of economics so that they could amass as much money as they could to out do each other and control the power in society. They were not as glorious and generous as some people make them out to have been.
John Stuart Mills is wrong when it comes to his rejection of paternalism. Mills is taking a position that is in line with that of classical liberalism which in many ways is in opposition to paternalism. This ideology only acknowledges the individual and does not take in account the larger society. Many do not like to be told what is right when it deals with something that does not affect anyone but themselves. The issue with this is that individuals are part of something. They are part of a family, community, city and nation. The impact of those choices might be seen as insignificant and not have relevance outside of their own lives but it is a small picture view and forgets about the big picture. Mills is right that paternalism is taking away liberties but those liberties affect others in ways that a person might see. Society should act as a parent to its individuals because they could cause weakness or issues that go beyond the realm of one’s own household.
John Stuart Mill believes in a utilitarian society where people are seen as “things.” Moreover, in utilitarianism the focus of the goal is “forward-looking”, in looking at the consequences but not the ini...
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
He recognized that a free market economy and private property could be maintained only if there were limited government, individual rights, the rule of law, and toleration (Capaldi, 2004, p. 198). It seems odd that in order for the free market economy to work efficiently there must be individual rights and the rule of law along with toleration. The basis of the free market economy is focused primarily around these three attributes that individuals must put forth. The odd part is that with the lack of a free market there are still individual rights and toleration must still be exercised frequently to preserve peace. The concept itself is profound and has great outcomes available, but with so many individuals varying opinions there would be potential conflict that limits all three of those attributes. John Stuart Mill had a great idea on this topic but didn’t have plans set in place for if the government wouldn’t provide rules for all individuals. The free market economy could fall into ruin if not handled in a joined effort with all involved. A free market economy is not just about making money. Unless as many individuals as possible are encouraged to obtain private property and participate as entrepreneurs within the market economy, liberal culture will breed its own self-destructive Frankenstein (Capaldi, 2004, p.
In order to understand how Mill and Locke came to the conclusion of how much freedom a person should possess, we must understand what a political thinker perceives as freedom and liberty. In John Locke’s writings, The Second Treaties of Government, he states that “all men exist in a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and person as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave or depend...
A change in strategy leads to new perspective over certain matters. During FDR’s tenure many new reforms were adopted as part of the New Deal. Some o...
Lawrence M. Friedman’s Law in America is a fascinating short write up of the history of the American legal system. In Friedman’s book Law in America, he explains three factors/periods that is the history of how our legal system was formed throughout time. The first factor was how the colonial period helped shape the American justice system and hoe they were developed through the legal views of early English settlers. However, our legal system was further molded by our view and experiences following our independence from England and the war. It seems that the laws had many religious beliefs.
...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.
In Considerations on Representative Government, Mill denounces the idea that a despotic monarchy headed by a good despot is the best form of government. Mill goes on to share the reason behind this idea. The reason lies in the supposition that a distinguished individual with absolute power will ensure that all the duties of government is performed intelligently and virtuously. Mill does not disagree with this belief but he finds the need to address it. He states that an “all-seeing” monarch rather than a “good monarch” is needed. The despot would need to be informed correctly and in detail at all time, and be able to oversee every division of administration with effective attention and care in the twenty-four hours per day he has. If not, the
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.