Analysis Of ' On Liberty '

This again poses another need to set the boundary for enforcing majority opinion over other individuals whose independence should also get respectable recognition. While this is a topic that is neglected by many democratic systems, Mill laid out the central argument to his essay that interfering individual liberty by others or society as a whole can only be allowed under self-protection when the individual in concern poses a threat to others. Other than such circumstance, he strongly believed in the minimum level of enforcement of majority opinion on the minority, saying that "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." Which highlights the importance of one’s sovereignty over his or her body and

He believed that no one should not be criticized by its gender or religion. Mill expressed himself behind his work. He defended the right of individuals. In his autobiography, he wrote, "the importance, to man and society . . ., of giving full freedom to human nature to expand itself in innumerable and conflicting

John Stuart Mill uses much of the same reasoning to defend freedom of individuality as he did with the defense of freedoms of opinion. As he stated earlier in chapter 2, “ages are no more infallible than individuals; every age having held many opinions which subsequent ages have deemed not only false but absurd…” meaning the majority is not always correct and could be imposing opinions that are incorrect (pg 21-22). This same argument applies to individuality. When people are forced to conform to one way of living, the possibility of finding a better way to live is impossible. Each person’s life, when given the freedom to live their life in a way that does not harm others, acts as an experiment. The more varied the experiments, the better a

First off, the morals and standards and how the higher class looks at itself in a society will most likely have most influence of morality in that society. Then, citizens of that society are more inclined to follow the rules of their religion and this also included in the rules of conduct for society. The basic interests of any society influence moral sentiments as a single piece. ¬ Mill also shows that it isn't the actual interests in someone that influence, but rather the good interests and bad interests that come from experience. Mill also says that there is really no full religious freedom. Mill believes that the most a society can impose influence on someone is to protect others. If someone places themselves in a position that is only dangerous to them, society has no right to according to Mill.

In this excerpt and the essay On Liberty (1859) as a whole John Stuart Mill seeks to set out the guidelines for when liberty can be justly infringed upon and uses examples to show when liberty is unjustly infringed upon by society or an authority within society. During this excerpt John Stuart Mill sets out the ‘Harm principle’ which would come to be influential in both classical liberalism and modern day liberalism. The harm principle 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” (Mill, On Liberty, p13). In this he is placing the individual at the centre of liberalism and the individual’s freedom as one of the cornerstones of liberalism which still persists to this day.

After noting that many nations have tried and failed at this feat, he offers his own solution. Society or an individual may interfere with individual rights if and only if it is necessary to protect itself. “[T]he sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their members, is self-protection…[h]is own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant” (On Liberty, 11). Mill uses a Hobbesian notion of self-preservation as the cornerstone of his

John Stuart Mill was an enormously influential philosopher in nineteenth century Britain. Unlike Locke, he was to a greater extent focused on utilitarianism and harm reduction. (Heydt, 2006) Utilitarianism, or the doctrine that actions are right and moral if they benefit the majority, should compel the person to do the “right thing”. When an action is right, it promotes positive reaction among the individuals and if it is wrong, it will do the opposite. (Encyclopædia Britannica, 2015) Everything considered, Mill opined following the state was the morally right thing to do. But realistically, how many people would consider giving up their own personal gain for the gain of others? Humans are fairly gluttonous beings and to expect them to give up what matters to them in the interest of others is not a viable option. Not only is this an issue, but if something is detrimental to one or more persons in the group, would it not be ruinous to the community as a whole by upsetting the balance and tenor of an area within the community? What

Consider the freedom of action. Given Mill’s description of individual freedoms, it seems that one is free to do whatever action that they want, so long as it does not affect other people. This includes following custom, if they so desire, and is not necessarily an evil. For instance, if it is customary for women to wear dresses, then for a woman to wear a dress would be a typical and non-harmful thing to do. Obviously, if the action compelled by custom is one that would negatively impact others, then that is unacceptable and society is liable to punish. For instance, if it were customary for a business to underpay its employees. These cases all consider when custom influences action, not the simple existence of custom itself.

Firstly, we need to analyze what John Mill states with the passage which is the Harm Principle. Mill main concern was the way that someone can control another person. Mill believes that the right to control someone else can only be “warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection” ( Mill ) I believe that Mill is saying that people's liberty and freedom should not be controlled unless they are going to harm someone else. By harm, I think he is referring to injuring someone's rights and impeding on things that will benefit the person. Mill the says that “{T}he 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” (Mill )In my opinion he is saying that the only time someone who has the power such as the government can step in and limit someone's actions is if that person would cause harm to someone. The last part of the passage is “His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”( Mill ). From this statement, I concluded that people can essentially do what they want to themselves as authority has no power over what they do to themselves also that if someone physically harms you or if something that a person says or does is against your morals it is not a good enough reason for the government to step in. All in all this passage states that there is a limit on the authorities action, it distinguishes between when the government is allowed to interfere in an individual's life and when is not. This passage does not only limit the authorities ability to interfere it also limits the public's ability to interfere, just because something is unacceptable by the majority doesn’t give people the ability to interfere, for example, if someone is acting immorally but not causing harm it is not justified to step in.

Born in 1806, John Stewart Mill was an English philosopher who highly prized the Utilitarian belief system, or the doctrine of seeking the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. Among his various political treatises, On Liberty and The Subjection of Women are excellent applications of his convictions in individualism and negative government. Though the subjects of each work differ to an extent, both are written in a dialogue format, and the general principles postulated in On Liberty can be easily applied to the second work. Essentially, Mill seeks to assert the importance of certain personal rights and freedoms, moral beliefs, and the integrity of the

“A higher sense of purpose” must be that warm feeling we get when we talk about American democracy. “A shared foundation of liberty” is ironic because the American idea of how ‘free’ America is in comparison to other countries, according to CNSNEWS, ranks us as 20th in the world on their freedom index (https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/daniel-mitchell/us-barely-cracks-top-20-ranking-nations-overall-freedom). I don’t understand if this is just me but I struggle to find a reason of what America stands for that makes us so special. My dad and I were having a discussion about the whole NFL kneeling scandal and his reasoning for why they shouldn’t do it is that it disrespects what our nation stands for and if we don’t like it leave. He thought

In Mill's article on Individuality his goal of this text is to get people to have their own decision and do what best for them rather than following the majority, Before Mill states his view on hero worship he talks about how people let themselves be ruled by aristocracy and even democracy. By solemn follow it rules. But, Mill lets us know as readers that this what people had always done. As he stated in the example:

Mill’s work and argument freedom is dead dogma. He argues with freedom of thought which is vital for society people are fallible. However, society growing up, cultural norms, religion shape ideas this could lead to false truth and half-truth or part truth. He discussed society with Jesus to highlights both killed for murdered by society for telling their opposing truth to suggest society hates effect afraid of the

“On Liberty” is an essay composed by a man named J.S. Mill who talks about the different types of liberty given to individuals. The novel in divided up into five chapter stating different liberties or responsibilities that makes someone a responsible self. There is no real definition of what could be considered a responsible self but all the duties one has is what composes this person into what Mill believes one should be. These responsibilities are first to oneself, to others, and finally to society as a whole.

     In addition, Mill supported the belief that, “Each is the proper guardian of his own heath, whether bodily or mental and spiritual.” Therefore, by limiting autonomy the assumption would have to be made that the individual no longer has the ability to be the guardian of themselves. This concept can not be universally applied; independent of the structure of government in a particular society, because of the agreement that man is a rational being.