Question 2) In Utilitarianism, the utilitarian principle is defended as the foundation of morality compared to the civil and social liberty emphasized in On Liberty in the form of society’s power over an individual (Mill, 1). In this paper, I argue that Mill’s Utilitarianism cannot be reconciled with On Liberty on the basis of contradicting principles in both books and the visible tensions between the defense of individual liberty and the promotion of the utility principle. In fact, the contradiction lies in the notion of the greatest happiness principle versus individual rights.
There are thousands of laws on the books that are rarely enforced by law enforcement personnel. Numerous laws are violated each day, in private, and do not raise the suspicion of the police or any other person. Does that mean there were no victims of a crime? Unfortunately no. There is a large contingent of people that want to keep the state out of an individual’s private lives and suggest there are many “victimless” crimes that should never be enforced and stricken from the law books. Regrettably every crime that is committed has a victim, whether directly or indirectly that affects society as a whole.
Plato is a firm believer in a Aristocracy. Through years of preparation and precision a small group of philosophers would rule. However as Aristotle claims that this way of government would lead to an oligarchy, spreading the wealth gap and creating factions within the society. As mentioned in Republic, this is how a tyranny would arise, from one compelling ruler who claims to fight for the people be engulfed by their power and do worse for society. Aristotle's resolution is to have a monarchy for that in his eyes would be the best for society. But the way a monarchy hands power down if from generation to generation which means that a ruler could be in power who doesn't have the same virtues and morals as Aristotle points out in Ethics and Politics. Both philosophers make a compelling argument for answering the question, who should rule? Winston Churchill, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom said it best, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all those others that have been tried”. Democracy has a its fair share of issues and for people it seems like a flawed system. However Democracy is a better system of government than Plato's aristocracy, and Aristotle's monarchy. For it ensures that there cannot be one single ruler who can become corrupted and therefore affect the city as a whole. In a democracy officials are elected by
Justice within Platonic society was considered a principle of specialization. This specialization made it so that each person needed to fulfill the societal role to which he was born to and was not to interfere in any other business. This created a line between justice for the rich verses justice for the poor. Aristotle discusses the difference in an oligarchy which the rich are sovereign and a democracy where the free are sovereign and the reality that “the former are many, the latter few: many are free, few are rich” (p. 245, 1290a
When it comes to glue usage, kindergarten teachers the world over agree that a dab will do. Nevertheless, despite centuries of debate, there is no such consensus about the ideal amount of individualism a society should desire. In his 1863 work On Liberty, philosopher John Stuart Mill seeks to address this issue, and explain the generally salutary progress of human thought and behavior. He concludes that most reasonable minds are produced through discussion and debate with the varied viewpoints of others, advocating for intellectual diversity. Mill also argues that, on a societal level, civilized outcomes are accomplished best through a mix of conformity to customs and individual agency to alter social norms. Mill’s arguments establish that individuals, or even isolated groups, are less effective than well-connected, heterogeneous groups; the later works of Putnam and Kwon et al. bolster and extend this truth with specific, contemporary evidence.
Utilitarianism defined, is the contention that a man should judge everything based on the ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. In other words Utilitarianism states that good is what brings the most happiness to the most people. John Stuart Mill based his utilitarian principle on the decisions that we make. He says the decisions should always benefit the most people as much as possible no matter what the consequences might be. Mill says that we should weigh the outcomes and make our decisions based on the outcome that benefits the majority of the people. This leads to him stating that pleasure is the only desirable consequence of our decision or actions. Mill believes that human
The term “civil or social liberties” is one that garners a lot of attention and focus from both Rousseau and Mill, although they tackle the subject from slightly different angles. Rousseau believes that the fundamental problem facing people’s capacity to leave the state of nature and enter a society in which their liberty is protected is the ability to “find a form of association that defends and protects the person and goods of each associate with all the common force, and by means of which each one, uniting with all, nevertheless obeys only himself and remains as free as before” (Rousseau 53). Man is forced to leave the state of nature because their resistance to the obstacles faced is beginning to fail (Rousseau 52). Mill does not
The ancient Greek Philosopher Plato had an interest in finding the ideal government. In Plato’s Republic, he discusses his ideas and views of how this ideal government would function. He believed that people are born into 3 different classes, with different responsibilities (Plato 415a). Only people in the “golden” class were fit to rule. The most effective of these rulers would be philosophers, as they have knowledge of the good of the whole (Plato 473d). This system seems too perfect for me. I believe that Plato’s republic is unjust and would not work with our modern society, as it relies too much on the “golden” class choosing what is right for everyone, and there is nothing to make them accountable if they choose wrong.
In this essay, I will argue that Plato 's definition of justice in the individual is inadequate since a just individual cannot act unjustly. I will start by defining justice in the individual. Next, I will reexamine Socrates’ refutation of Polemarchus’ second definition. Then, I will show how just individuals (i.e., the philosophy rulers) in the republic act unjustly by using the example of the treatment of people with disability in the republic. This creates a contradiction in Socrates ' definition. Lastly, I will propose two remedies to solve this contradiction.
John Stuart Mill begins the explanation of his version of Utilitarianism by replying to common misconceptions that people hold regarding the theory, and as a result describes his own theory more clearly. The main issue that Mill raises is that people misinterpret the word “utility” as in opposition to “pleasure”. However, utility is actually defined as pleasure itself and also the absence of pain.
How do we apply aged philosophies to present day problems? Like his forefather John Stuart Mill, modern thinker Peter Singer approaches moral philosophy from a utilitarian perspective. In this paper, I will argue that Singer’s and Mill’s utilitarian philosophies share numerous similarities but also differ. Singer and Mill agree that selflessness can end human suffering. In addition, their views concerning the significance of consequences align; however, they conflict on the relevance of motivation. I contend that Singer improves upon Mill’s utilitarianism by accurately recognizing the discrepancy between absolute affluence and absolute poverty and also by considering the intricate concept of motive.
Inhibition of one's liberty, such as their liberty of conscience (i.e. freedom of speech), is unjust by Millian principles, unless the person's use of deliberation is to voice hate speech. So what is hate speech? Hate speech is directed towards a member of a group, or the group as a whole, that vilifies on the basis of the subject's beliefs. In comparison to discriminatory speech, hate speech does not invoke mere offense, but in most cases is traumatic, and severely impair one’s deliberative capacities, or their mental faculties (judgment, moral preference, intuition, etc…). Liberties have been established to protect our deliberative abilities, as these are conducive to achieving happiness, which to Mill is the individual's primary goal. So why should we regulate hate speech? Although it is important to allow people's freedom of expression, as this is conducive to promoting one's individuality, hate speech can stigmatize one's character, and for this reason hate speech is not always morally, or legally permissible. To better understand hate speech's importance, I will describe Mill's argument in favor of prohibiting hate speech, following this I will object to Mill's rejection of hate speech, finally, I will show why hate speech should be regulated, and why allowing it is dangerous to humans, and society as a whole. Freedom of expression is imperative for improving one’s character, but not all forms of opinions', such as hate speech, should have full freedom to be
The Republic by Plato examines many aspects of the human condition. In this piece of writing Plato reveals the sentiments of Socrates as they define how humans function and interact with one another. He even more closely Socrates looks at morality and the values individuals hold most important. One value looked at by Socrates and his colleagues is the principle of justice. Multiple definitions of justice are given and Socrates analyzes the merit of each. As the group defines justice they show how self-interest shapes the progression of their arguments and contributes to the definition of justice.
In his work On Liberty, Mill placed much emphasis on individual liberty and its vital role in political society. To Mill, this phrase may be defined as the liberty of the individual to be the final judge over his actions; to decide what is right and wrong and to act upon that standard. On a secondary level, it also implies one's freedom to pursue one's own individuality. Mill believed in a society in which each individual leads his own distinctive life according to his own unique talents; unfettered by regulations upon thought, opinion, actions etc.
John Locke (1632-1704) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) are two important thinkers of liberty in modern political thought. They have revolutionized the idea of human freedom at their time and have influenced many political thinkers afterwards. Although their important book on human freedom, John Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government (1689) and John Mill’s On Liberty (1859), are separated 170 years, some scholars thinks that they are belonging to the same conceptual tradition, English Liberalism. In this essay, I will elaborate John Locke and John Stuart Mill view on human freedom and try to find the difference between their concept of human freedom despite their similar liberal tradition background.