Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
John stuart mill on individual liberty
John Stuart Mill “On Liberty”
John Stuart Mill “On Liberty”
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
John stuart mill on individual liberty
John Stuart Mill “On Liberty”
John Stuart Mill “On Liberty”
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Mills believed that society had the right to limit freedoms of the individual to engage in behaviors that affected those not engaging in the behaviors. This idea is articulated later in “On Liberty” when mill 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.”
One may say, “If I do something that’s only harming me, then society can’t step in and force me to do otherwise.” However, isn’t everything we do affecting other people in the society? For example, if a person were to not vaccinate his newborn and his newborn contracts a disease, it will affect others in society. In response, Mill would acknowledge that people are not fully isolated from society, and therefore the actions those people take will ultimately affect others and possibly do harm. However, he says, "But with regard to the merely contingent or, as it may be called, constructive injury which a person causes to society by conduct which neither violates any specific duty to the public, nor occasions perceptible hurt to any assignable individual except himself, the inconvenience is one which society can afford to bear, for the sake of the greater good of human freedom” (Mill 80).
Utilitarianism would look at this situation as a wrongful action. According to teleological created by John Stuart Mill the action that happens is based of the good that comes from said action. In this case Payne’s action while arresting Ms. Wobbles would go against teleological due to being negative in nature and doing more harm then good for either parties involved. According to Jeremy Bentham the goodness of the action is based on the consequences of the action that is made. I believe that Payne does deserve to be terminated from the department and rightfully tried in court for all the departmental policies that were broke during the arrest of Ms. Wobbles.
John Stuart Mill was an advocate of utilitarianism, which is a normative moral theory that holds that the right action is the one that maximizes utility. His justification of utilitarianism is found in his proof of the “principle of utility”, which states that happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable as an end. Basically, utilitarianism is proven true if the principle of utility is proven true. Mill poses the question “Can the principle of utility be proved?” and begins formulating his proof by asking what conditions it should fulfill in order to make its claims believable.
The thesis for J.S. Mill, On Liberty is whether we should be able to act upon our opinions. According to Mill, we need to be able to have opinions and express them without being held back. To act on those opinions, is another point, our actions are not as free as our opinions. Our opinions shouldn’t infringe on others, but if they do not get in the way, you should be allowed to practice at your own risk.
There is always contradiction on whether if people in the United States posses ro mich freedom or not. Although freedom is one of the most important rights citizens have, people continue to argue on this status. Moreover, people argue that our society should give the greatest amount of goods, even if it means less freedom, others argue that by restricting freedom human’s health can improve, however; when we allow individual behavior to endanger others, we’ve damaged both freedom and health. First of all, the greatest goods should be achieved for the greatest amount of people. For example, by people providing exemplary behavior, they can remain in liberty, and have a good life style.
The objections made against Mill’s Harm Principle do not succeed in objectifying the principle as an utter failure, thus the objections are valid reasons against the principle, and every individual is entitled to their own opinion and interpretation of principles such as Mill’s. The replies provided aid in showing that the Harm principle in not set in concrete, although Mill does provide his strong views on the topic of harm to others, this does not necessarily mean that every action that can possible be made by an individual is going to fit under the banner of what he deems as acceptable actions that do not cause ‘harm’ to others, and actions that he deems unacceptable because they will cause ‘harm’ and are immoral. Yes Lacewing is correct
The question of man's individual freedom and liberty weighing against the dictates of rulers has steadily endured in discussion since the Age of Enlightenment, and while many Western philosophers have pondered the limits of this question, this issue remains hotly debated even today. This age-old question of how to properly balance man's rights to liberty with his obedience under authority has persisted since ancient times1. Those who have probed these ideas have laid the foundations for liberalism as an ideal. The main argument of the liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill's On Liberty is of the need for individuals to have a proper balance of liberties and freedoms in life juxtaposed with deference and respect for laws and institutions in place. Mill was correct in his assertions that liberty and freedoms for the individual would be the driving force in countering the stagnation of society.
Mill argued that as long as I am not harming anyone else, my “independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” While his take on utilitarianism was still questioned he also believed that we should maximize utility not case by case, but in the long run. With this practice in place, over time respecting individual liberties would lead to the greatest human happiness.
One of the core principles of the US Constitution is the freedom of speech. Something so ingrained in the country that it is often an afterthought of many Americans. John Stuart Mill believes that freedom of expression and speech is a necessity for humans to advance and evolve. Mill justifies this absolute freedom by stating that the mistakes and choices made by the person leads to progress and the development of your individual self, a theory known as the harm principle. Using the idea of the harm principle, Mill claims that the only limit that should be placed on expression is if it leads to the harms of others it is not to be infringed upon if it only harms the individual.
It is the latter which “concerns the interest of another person”. In other words, if the interests of another has been violated, harm has been dealt. It is under this threat - the ‘damage of interests’ - that Mill agrees with interference from the society in order to prevent this. This exemplifies liberal thinking in that he believes we are free to do whatever we liked, providing it is a self-regarding action and did not affect other people.
“On Liberty” by John Stuart Mill This reading has to do with political and social freedoms. In Chapter II, Mill reflects on whether people, either by themselves or through their tyrannical government, should be allowed to pressure anyone else’s point of view or opinion. He states that by doing so, it is basically unlawful. This is because if everyone were to agree on something but there just happens to be an odd man out, that one person would be silenced because the majority are agreeing so they’re the powerful group. But if that odd man out had the power, he would be justified in silencing mankind.
Liberty, in philosophy, involves free will as contrasted with determinism. In politics, liberty consists of the social and political freedoms to which all community members are entitled. In theology, liberty is freedom from the effects of, "sin, spiritual servitude, worldly ties." Generally, liberty is distinctly differentiated from freedom in that freedom is primarily, if not exclusively, the ability to do as one wills and what one has the power to do; whereas liberty concerns the absence of arbitrary restraints and takes into account the rights of all involved. As such, the exercise of liberty is subject to capability and limited by the rights of others.
The book On Liberty, is one of philosophical and most famous work written by John Stuart Mill in 1859. In the book, J.S. Mill applies his utilitarian concept to the history and the state. There he attempts to exhibit the idea that the society advances from lower to higher places this advance comes full circle in the development of an arrangement of delegate democracy. This writing consists total of five chapters which consists of introduction, the liberty of thought and discussion, individuality, as one of the elements of well-being, the limits to the authority of society over the individual and multiple applications of the theory.
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”.