Comparing John Stewart Mill and Nietzsche

Mill disagreed with Bentham as he believed in ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ pleasures that can be derived from actions and promoted those pleasures which developed an individual’s skills and abilities rather than short-term pleasure seeking actions. He placed emphasis on individual development and flourishing.

This quote demonstrates a departure from Kant’s idea that enlightenment is entirely dependent on the individual. Mill praises the importance of

In the conceptualization of the predominant 19th century political thought process, none- if any- were more influential than John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx. Both were philosophers, sociologists, economists and political thinkers, but each held unique views towards the ideal government, to freedom, and to the impact of the industrial revolution. Each discussed some of the ramifications of the industrial revolution, and the ways in which the government can be re-aligned for greater social prosperity. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) advocated for Liberalism, a system in which liberty and equality would remain at the forefront of all political proposals, and representative interests. Mill celebrated individuality, and the ability to not conform to a higher power. In contrast to Mill, Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a revolutionary socialist who advocated for a complete social revolution throughout society, in an effort to counter the ill perceived effects of capitalism. Marx’s central tenet relied upon the fact that he sought to abolish private property, and monopolies, so as to enable all individuals to acquire an equitable means of living. Marx’s belief was that capitalism forces the economy into constantly being exploited, which in turn leads to recessions. Mill believed that all power should be allocated to the individual; whereas Marx believed that bestowing such power within a socialist regime would allow for the creation of a truly egalitarian society. This paper will analyze how

Mill claims that his purpose in writing on liberty is to assert what he describes one very simple principle. The principle that ought to govern society and that principle has come to be known as the harm principle. The individuals own good either physical or moral is not a sufficient warrant for societal intervention. The individual cannot rightfully be compelled to do or not to do because it will be better for him to do so because it is better for him to do so because it will make him happier.

Both Mill and Nietzsche would argue that the singularity of values, or preconceived, undivided ideas of truth, is an impediment to freedom. Nietzsche’s perspective further details how utility theory, as a method to determine freedom, inhibits freedom, as it appears to support the singularity of values. He would argue that prescribing a moral good of utility and saying that it is good for society as a whole, is promoting cultural specificity in that it assumes that one idea is good for everyone. Nietzsche rejects the idea that there are universal, singular, definitive truths. Nietzsche does not see the value “good” as a thing itself; rather, it is a construct or artifact of a particular time and power structure. He warns against buying into

Whether or not you agree with their views, both Friedrich Nietzsche and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. were great, highly influential men. Their views, though radically different, impacted the world in the greatest of ways, altering history for many nations. While Nietzsche, a German philosopher from the 1800s, spoke from a materialistic point of view, believing that there is no god and that all that exists is matter, King, a civil rights activist of the 1900s, spoke from the belief in transcendence, that there is indeed a god, and that he exists in a divine realm outside of this universe. But not only do these men differ in their backgrounds and religious beliefs, they differ radically in how they believe society should function. In Nietzsche’s writings, he promoted a system that emphasizes will to power. He believed that an aristocracy was the basis for a great society. King, on the other hand, promoted a system of equality and justice. He thought all men were created equal, and that society should reflect that belief. The writings of these men have come to be studied by people everywhere. They are so influential, in fact, that one of them played an incredible role in getting our society to the point that it is today.

John Stuart Mill (20 May 1806- 8 May 1873) was born in London, England. He was a renowned philosopher best known for his interpretation of utilitarianism, an ethical theory developed by Jeremy Bentham. Utilitarianism is based on the concept that an actions morality should be judged solely upon its resulting

Indeed, Mill asserted that the cultivation of one's individuality should be the goal of human existence. He wrote On Liberty as an argument against repressive laws which inhibit voluntary association and suppress original ideas and ways of thinking, in a bid to protect the freedom of the individual from stifling social conventions, oppressive legal controls and censorship. What is the value of individual liberty that calls for it to be defended so fervently by Mill?

This paper will discuss John Stuart Mill’s argument about the freedom of expression of opinion, and how Mill justified that freedom. I will also discuss how strong his argument was and whether or not I agree with it. John Stuart Mill was a political economist, civil servant, and most importantly an English philosopher from the nineteenth century. Throughout his writing, John Stuart Mill touched on the issues of liberty, freedom and other human rights. In his philosophical work, On Liberty, he discussed the relationship between authority and liberty, as well as the importance of individuality in society. In chapter two of On Liberty, Mill examined the freedom of expression in more detail, examining arguments for and against his own.

Explain in your own words the logic of Mill’s argument, and critically discuss whether happiness should be the criterion of morality.

Because of his views on morality Mill would not agree with Aristotle that the completely ethical person will not be conflicted about his ethical choice. According to Mill a person could do the right thing, and act morally while also having the desire to do the wrong thing. To explain this, he gives the example of a

Mill is extremely clear as to why the individual should be sovereign over his or her body and mind—to counter the effects of a possible "tyranny of the majority." Mill states, "It (the majority) practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself" (63).

The aim of this paper is to clearly depict how John Stuart Mill’s belief to do good for all is more appropriate for our society than Immanuel Kant’s principle that it is better to do what's morally just. I will explain why Mill’s theory served as a better guide to moral behavior and differentiate between the rights and responsibilities of human beings to themselves and society.

The role of pleasure in morality has been examined thoroughly throughout the beginning of philosophy and continues to be a questionable issue. With these in-depth examinations, some similar outlooks as well as differing views have been recorded. Many philosophers have dissected this important topic, however I intend to concentrate of the famous works of Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill. After meticulously analyzing each of the above philosophers’ texts, I personally prefer the position of utilitarian and Benthamite, John Stuart Mill. After comparing and contrasting the positions and reasonings of these philosophers, I will demonstrate my own reasons why I have chosen John Stuart Mill as the most established in his theory of the role of pleasure in morality.

A primary objective of identifying common ground between Nietzsche and Mill’s ideas of freedom is to define freedom adequately so that it can be used as a basis for comparison. Each theorist’s opinion on what freedom is, however, appears to be fairly distinct. Mill might describe freedom as the absence of constraints to original, individual thought, whereas Nietzsche conceptualizes freedom as continual self-overcoming to evolve a more actualized self. Freedom for Nietzsche is overcoming wrong beliefs and creating one’s own values, whereas for Mill, freedom is having the leeway to discover one’s own values. In effect, Mill focuses on the structural protections or necessities that allow creativity to flourish, and Nietzsche wants to deconstruct those structures that impede that flourishing. Mill emphasizes optimizing the political and social realms, which in theory then provide a safe haven for Nietzsche’s intrapsychic or spiritual struggle. Thus, Mill 's definition could be described as political whereas Nietzsche 's could be understood as transformational. Both strive toward achieving the highest level of individual potential, and both want to support discovery of one’s most individualized beliefs. Given that each theorist has such distinct views on the definition itself, however, one needs to extrapolate the essence of what each would consider freedom to be. So for the purposes of describing how Mill and Nietzsche intersect, this approximation of a