Comparing Kant and Mill Essay

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.

'Mill's account of personal liberty ensures the development of the individual and society' Assess the validity in this claim.

Throughout his work Mill explains his principles and what he believes our laws should look like. In Mill’s harm principle he states

John Stuart Mill said, “The only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole subject is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind” (10). This quote shows that, as in any debate, there are two sides to an issue, and in order to form an opinion on something, a person must understand various sides of the

Mill highlights that a, a fool or pig, can only have a different opinion because it knows only one side of an issue. But a Socrates or human, knows both sides of an issue, and therefore can have a different opinion based on valid justification- which can only be achieved haven taken all aspects into regard. Therefore Mill's argument is a good one because it logically argues that people who have experienced both types of pleasures (intellectual

Firstly, Mill believes that individual liberty is instrumental in the attainment of truth. No one can claim an infallibility of knowledge or a definite truth. Falsehoods are often sprinkled with specks of truth; and truth may exists as half-truths held by different people, and it is only through controversy that the truth in the parts can be unified into a larger canvas of the ultimate truth. If one's actions were to be censored completely, society would lose those specks of truth amongst the falsehoods, which would be disadvantageous to society.

First, Mill pointed out that everyone has their own judgments and no one has the right to decide an issue for all people. The liberty of an opinion is often up for debate because we are all confident in our own rightness, even though that confidence is not justified. “They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging. To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.” (Mill, II.3). Mill pointed out that silencing a potentially true idea hurts society because it is shielded from that possible truth. You never can

Hume’s ultimate goal in his philosophic endeavors was to undermine abstruse Philosophy. By focusing on the aspect of reason, Hume shows there are limitations to philosophy. Since he did not know the limits, he proposed to use reason to the best of his ability, but when he came to a boundary, that was the limit. He conjectured that we must study reason to find out what is beyond the capability of reason.

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

John Stuart Mill, an English philosopher and a political economist, had an important part in forming liberal thought in the 19th century. Mill published his best-known work, _On Liberty,_ in 1859. This foundational book discusses the concept of liberty. It talks about the nature and the limits of the power performed by society over an individual. The book also deals with the freedom of people to engage in whatever they wish as long as it does not harm other persons.

Mill concerns his principle of individuality with the idea that each person should be allowed to develop his own ideas and frameworks in which he lives, as long as he acts in a civilized manner, contends no harm to others, and is capable of creating such opinions. Mill describes this notion by stating that, “… the object “toward which every human being must ceaselessly direct his efforts… is the individuality of power and development”; that for and that from the union of these arise “individual rigor and manifold diversity” which combine themselves in “originality”” (Mill 55). Contradictory to the evolutionary ideals of Wilson, Mill stresses the notion

Mill’s belief promotes that each individual’s opinion is important and therefore should be listened to by the government. The government would not be able to turn a blind eye to a minority; this is one of many influences on classical liberalism. In classical liberalism the government has limited say in the economy and ensures that everyone has the right to his or her freedom of opinion. An

In On Liberty (1859), John Stuart Mill was a strong believer of freedom of speech. He identifies the Harm principle to protect the freedom of thought and expression. He argues that people should not be silenced for expressing their opinion or how they feel based on their beliefs. He declares four vaguely arguments and makes several examples as to why freedom of speech is a very important aspect to society. In this paper, I argue that Mill is correct in declaring that we have the right to express our opinions as long as it does not bring harm to others. First, I will define how Mill uses the harm principle to declare his argument and the four distinct reasons for freedom of opinion and the expression of opinion. Secondly, I will declare my viewpoint based on why I agree with the harm principle as well as Mill’s argument following that we have a right to freedom of expression.

In John Stuart Mill’s essay On Liberty, he declares that people should be able to express their opinions and not be silenced by the majority or ruling class, because in Mill’s opinion discussion and debate is good for the wellbeing of society. By suppressing unpopular opinions, it delays progress and intellectual thought. Mill’s argument regarding the defense of the freedom to express opinions is effective, yet compared to his harm principle it does not stand logically. While superficially his argument seems strong, there are contradictions in his belief based on his earlier assertion of the utility to protect from harm that can be seen in the relatable examples given and the act of straw manning throughout his writing.

The criticism of a majority opinion is the value of free speech, in order to have a valid opinion you must accept and listen to the criticism of that opinion John Stuart Mill argues that anyone should be able to exercise their freedom of speech as long as it does not negatively affect or harm others. To specify, Mill states that there is no justification in silencing someone’s opinion, no matter if this opinion is right or wrong, or even popular or unpopular. The ability to criticize an opinion is a freedom that we deserve to have, John Stuart Mill goes into