What Is The Difference Between The French Revolution And The American Revolution

To paraphrase, John Stuart Mill argues that we can never justify the silencing of people. Even in the case that all but one have the same opinion, that one with a differing opinion is still not justifiable to silence. (Mill 1) I will argue that the opinion of another should never be suppressed for any reason, because everyone is entitled to their own opinion no matter what it may be; because we all deserve basic freedom of speech; because the society as a whole loses as well as the individual being silenced, loses by the silencing of one’s opinion. (Mill 2)

Throughout history there have been many important revolutions that have help to shape society as it is today. There are different causes, from political to religious, economic to social. Any revolution affects those in society, and creates changes for the people in the society. There are three important revolutions that took place in the late 18th century that changed the world for the better. The French Revolution, the American Revolution, and the Industrial Revolution all took place in the late 1700s. Although each had a different purpose, they all lead to a better way of life for many. The French and American Revolutions are examples of some which are brought about and enforced solely by the people. Although they had different reasons

The utility test stems from the Utilitarian Principle where the consequences of one’s actions determine right or wrong; the ends justify the means. Utilitarian ideas primarily came to fruition in the eighteenth century as three of the most prominent utilitarian philosophers released their works within the same timeframe, all principally speaking to the greatest happiness principle. John Stuart Mill, a distinguished British philosopher of utilitarianism, once stated, “The creed which accepts as the foundations of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” Specifically meaning that the only relevant actions are those producing consequences that can be derived as either good or bad (West, 2010). The purpose of one’s actions is to create a better life through the influx of happiness with the decrease of unhappiness in their surrounding environment; the best course of action to pursue is the path that manufactures the best/greatest possible outcomes.

Compare the American and French Revolutions of the same era with respect to the ideals that motivated them.

Many of the wars of the Early Modern Era were revolutions. The main reason for this type of war was because of the growing rebellious attitude in the mind’s of the non-noble classes. This attitude spurred mostly from the spreading of new ideas. Starting with the Renaissance in Northern Italy, new thinking was put into the minds of many people. Before then, the thought of challenging ideas, especially socially accepted ideas, was unheard of. Critical thinking and reason was not a major factor until the Renaissance. From then on people began to ask why and how. The age of Enlightenment was a time in Western Europe in which intellectuals used analysis, reason, and individualism to force out traditional thinking/ways. It was no longer assumed that

In this paper I am going to attempt to answer a question utilizing a little help from one of two philosophers. First of all the question I will be answering is “Should the moral value of an action be determined by the intentions/character that inspire the action, or the consequences that result from the action?” Second, the philosophers I am going to discuss throughout this paper are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Now before I tell you my answer to this question I am going to explain these who these two philosophers are and what their viewpoints on ethics are.

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.

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.

Given the variation in definitions above, I have found that the significance of the word revolution has effectively been the same since the early 20th century. By this generalized definition, in order to be successful, a revolution within a society must be carried out through the will of that society as a mass of people collectively acting on behalf of the will of that society as a whole. Upon success, the present form of government is overthrown while simultaneously, a reformed government is

A revolution often affects the country in a way that brings it full circle. The French Revolution took the people from the rule of the oppressive aristocracy only to place them under the rule of an oppressive dictator. The American Revolution or the War for Independence replaced taxes issued from overseas with taxes issued from the country itself. It is for this reason that the advancements made in the time period before the American Civil War cannot be described as a revolution, but a transformation, for they changed the country politically, socially, and economically.

John Stuart Mill was a classical liberal thinker and believed, through the influence of his father, that man deserved to live a life that promoted the greatest amount of happiness with limited government intervention. Mill grew up with the belief that there was no God and therefore believed that man is born inherently good; government should be limited to allow individuals to make their own decisions from their inherently good instincts; economic freedom provided individuals with the protection of rights and promoted the ideology that Mill stood for most, Utilitarianism which highly influenced classical liberalism.

Is it acceptable to steal money from other people? What if an individual were to ‘persuade’ others to give him/her money? Furthermore, what is the ‘stolen’ money were to be helping the lives of others? A licensed casino is allowed to persuade people to spend money on gambling, with minimal to no repercussions, but hysteria ensues on campuses everywhere over political correctness and ideology. The connection between casino gambling and student protests is “the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual” (Mill 1). In other words, who or what has the right to impose restrictions on an individual or on society. The English philosopher, John Stuart Mill, argues such concepts of free expression and political theory in his essay titled, On Liberty. The work of Mill is considered to be the foundation of liberalism and modern day politics. In order to fulfill the idea of perfect liberty, there must be no restrictions or limitations enforced on expressions so that society may attain the truth.

John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant in my opinion was two great scholars with two great but very different views, on morality. John Stuart strong beliefs was named Utilitarianism. Simply stated Utilitarianism is the belief in doing what is good specifically for the greater good of the masses/everyone not just someone.

Revolutions are usually associated with change. Although change is monumental and significant, the way change happens and why it happens are more important things to consider. Looking at two specific revolutions in history, the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution, there are two major leaders who greatly stand out. In these two primary sources they share their goals, characterization of democracy, and opinions of violence in their movements that greatly influenced change. The French Revolution lasted from 1789 to 1799 and had a main goal of decreasing powerful monarchs and increasing democracies and nationalism. The Russian revolution in this primary source took place in 1917 and had a goal to get rid of Bourgeoisie power and

John Stuart Mill discusses the conception of liberty in many ways. I’d like to focus of his ideas of the harm principle and a touch a little on his thoughts about the freedom of action. The harm principle and freedom on action are just two subtopics of Mill’s extensive thoughts about the conception on liberty. Not only do I plan to discuss and explain each of these parts on the conception of liberty, but I also plan to discuss my thoughts and feelings. I have a few disagreements with Mill on the harm principle; they will be stated and explained. My thoughts and feelings on Mill vary but I’d like to share my negative opinion towards the principle and hope to put it in a different perspective.