ipl-logo

John Stuart Mill And Utilitarianism

719 Words3 Pages

John Stuart Mill’s argument on the government’s role is an anti-perfectionist and utilitarian approach. Utilitarianism is basing an action on what would maximize the most happiness among people. This theory is composed of two components the account of utility which is what is intrinsically good and the Principle of Utility that determines what actions are right based on their outcome. Mill’s take on utilitarianism is that there are different levels of pleasures, where intellectual enjoyment is a higher ranking on pleasure. Moreover, Mill claims that to achieve the greatest happiness of a group of people is for the government to be an impartial judge. Mill also establishes the harm principle which states “That principle is, that the sole end …show more content…

Mill states that for the most part speech and discussions aren’t harmful to society, so it doesn’t violate the harm principle. There are two branches to his argument for the individual’s ability to freely speak his or her mind without repercussions. The first branch is that to suppress an individual’s expression of his or her opinion is an assumption of infallibility, which is to obstruct other opinions that criticize one’s own beliefs due to the assumption that your knowledge is errorless. The issue with restraining freedom of speech is that it prevents people from receiving the truth, because it is necessary to take in consideration all perspectives on a belief to come to a logical conclusion. Furthermore, this is detrimental on society because it isolates society from moral truths and affects the well-being on the individual and the overall group of people. The second branch of Mill’s argument is that another harmful outcome of limiting free speech to society is dead dogma. Mill asserts that “the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience,” (Mill 50). Dead dogma is when a belief has been accepted as a truth by majority of a community to where the discussion of its validity ceases. Without continuous discussion and opposing opinions, meanings will be lost and the reasoning behind our judgements get forgotten. In addition, that accepted belief or truth becomes stagnant and does not develop

Show More
Related
1305 Words | 6 Pages

I will attempt to justify that John Stuart Mills approach to the argument of Freedom of Speech is the most valid, and the only instance where expression should be limited is where it causes an immediate harm or violation to the rights of others. I believe that expression should be limited when it causes harm to others or violates their rights. This view coincides with J.S Mill’s “Harm Principle”. I do not believe that hate speech should be prohibited as it merely

Read More
1040 Words | 5 Pages

Nevertheless, children or primitive societies do not get to exercise personal liberty because they are not capable of higher reasoning (Mill 1863). Hence, those of us capable of rationalization and learning have an obligation to care for them as long as we exercise utility in the process (Mill

Read More
1245 Words | 5 Pages

The object of this essay is to show a simple evaluation of john Stuart mill principle “an action is right that it does not cause harm to another person” I will be exercising both evaluations and explaining why the positive side outweighs the negative side of the principle, in a society that it’s people are emancipated to control their own opinions. Mill Stuart in his autobiography of 1873 he narrates liberty as a philosophic chronicle of indivisible accuracy. (Mill (1989.edn).p.189) rather than speaking of rights, many claim a ‘right’ not to be harmed ,mill says that only a harm or risk to harm is enough vindication for using power above someone else. John Stuart moreover he adequate his principle by reckoning that it is not good to use power

Read More
278 Words | 2 Pages

John Stuart Mill’s essay, “On Liberty,” and Herbert Marcuse’s “Repressive Tolerance” each argue the value of tolerance in society. Their arguments converge in the belief that the majoritarian argument can be harmful, but diverge in their ideas about the value of free discussion of opinions. As a whole, Mill and Marcuse have contradictory arguments about the value of tolerance. Mill and Marcuse each assert that the opinions of a society 's majority can be repressive and harmful.

Read More
557 Words | 3 Pages

For example, books like Harry Potter get banned because of religious reasons but we should be able to talk about controversial topics because we have freedom of speech, and if we were given the right we should be able to express our feelings and ideas. For example, in Passage 2 it says ¨banning books can also have the unintended consequence of restricting access to critical information.¨ Banning Maus will go against freedom of

Read More
1204 Words | 5 Pages

The article argues that the courts should only view harmful speech in the same eyes and rule them the same as if they were conduct harms. The source then discusses how many scholars believe that freedom of speech only applies when the benefits outweigh the harms, regarding what is being said. The article does a good job of approaching the problem through a semi-neutral lens. The article clearly lets its opinion be known at times; however, it approaches the opposite side of the argument in a fair manner. The article will be incredibly beneficial because it discusses when freedom of speech should not apply with a neutral approach.

Read More
590 Words | 3 Pages

“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing than one person than he, if he has the power, would be justified in silencing mankind” (Mill, 1859, p.14). In the essay On Liberty by John Stuart Mill, written in 1859. Mill discusses his thoughts on the issue of freedom of speech and expresses his argument throughout the entirety of the essay. His argument states that society should be able to express themselves through speech without the threat of the Government or the tyranny of the majority interrupting the speaker`s liberty. He claims that as long as what an individual is saying does not cause direct harm on others an individual should be able to speak their beliefs freely without any consequences.

Read More
741 Words | 3 Pages

Mill warns about the danger of abuse, derived from group decision making, where 'social tyranny' emerges from within the society (Ten, 2008). The majority is able to oppress minorities, denying personal freedoms, and tempering with the ideals of liberty and autonomy. Therefore, democracy functions in paternalistic ways, creating 'antagonism between human excellence and political society' (Berkowitz, 2000, p.150). Since the majority can be misled, and thus prosecute individuals who differ, Mill promotes the application of individuality, regardless of predominant ideas, attitudes and beliefs. If a society embraces autonomy and free self-realisation attitudes, it can also accommodate diverse opinions, and include those who stand out (Ten, 2008).

Read More
1384 Words | 6 Pages

John Stuart Mill was a philosopher, political economist and civil servant in the 19th century . Mill is a Liberalist, which means that he believed that the government should not influence our personal choices as equal citizens of a society. John Mill was also a Utilitarian,

Read More
1228 Words | 5 Pages

The First Amendment outlines free speech as the right to speak, write, and share ideas and opinions without facing punishment from the government. Without the Constitution, Americans wouldn’t have basic rights and their actions and decisions would be controlled, stressing the importance of free speech. Therefore, the limitations on free speech should be no more than that said in the First Amendment as further restrictions would eliminate the foundations of human rights and freedoms in a democracy, lower one’s knowledge of their individualism, and would ultimately suppress a peaceful society. Free speech may be discussed in a multitude of ways, both positive and negative. However, the idea of limiting such freedoms is either or.

Read More
1658 Words | 7 Pages

In many ways, though, its the very basis of the First Amendment: You may disagree with what Im saying, but you may not silence my voice. Even when I'm calling you a bad name; even if what I say is not “politically correct” (Stevenson). In this statement Stevenson is implying the direct meaning of the First Amendment by stating that disagreements and censorship of phrases or knowledge is silencing the voice of an individual. Censorship is very dependent on an individuals perspective. On my circumstances individuals will be angered because people’s opinions, ideas, and works are being limited due to others disapproval.

Read More
1442 Words | 6 Pages

This paper explores the topic of freedom of expression. An important distinction to note is the difference between freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Freedom of speech constitutes any form of speech, this could include a statement that could be oral or written. Freedom of expression encompasses freedom of speech, it is an individual’s right to express their ideas freely through speech, writing and other communicative forms like comics, posters etc. In this paper, I will argue in favor of Scanlon’s Millian Principle; proving it is the most broadminded approach to the complex issue of freedom of expression- striking the perfect balance of preventing harm by appealing to an individual’s autonomy and preventing the censoring of opinions,

Read More
1564 Words | 7 Pages

John Stuart Mill, at the very beginning of chapter 2 entitled “what is utilitarianism”. starts off by explaining to the readers what utility is, Utility is defined as pleasure itself, and the absence of pain. This leads us to another name for utility which is the greatest happiness principle. Mill claims that “actions are right in proportions as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” “By Happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain, by happiness, pain and the privation of pleasure”.

Read More
817 Words | 4 Pages

The fact that one has the right to say and believe is the foundation for democracy to function. If no one dared to say their opinions, then it had become a dictatorship where only one opinion on how society and the country should work had been the “right”. If people dared to express their opinions, they will help improving the society one lives. Freedom of speech gives one the responsibility to consider what fits into different contexts, and it will make us better persons and people. Simply, people will feel safe in the society they live in.

Read More
836 Words | 4 Pages

In the second chapter of his essay, On Liberty, Mill passionately defends his doctrine of freedom of expression in the light of three important and concrete points. These are namely human fallibility, tolerance and the search for truth. Most interestingly, Mill sets the tone of his defence of free thought and discussion in line with the first chapter. Liberty of the press from the onset was envisioned as a right that would secure against corrupt and tyrannical rulers. But today, and

Read More

More about John Stuart Mill And Utilitarianism

Related Topics

Open Document