John Stuart Mill Individuality Essay

John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873) is recognised as one of the most prolific thinkers of the nineteenth century, whose liberal political philosophy has influenced intellectuals and political theorists for decades (Feinberg, 1986). At the same time, Mill's utilitarian approach to society at large reveals sensibilities and moral considerations that enhance his liberal attitudes in the most surprising ways. According to Losurdo (2011), it is widely believed that Mill is one of the greatest opponents of paternalism, supporting individuals' liberty and autonomy. However, Mill is also accused of overt sentiment, ignorance of natural rights, or a diversion from original conceptions of Utilitarianism. As a result, this essay is concerned with his conception of individuality, as discussed in his On Liberty (1859), investigating how this notion, based on individual liberty and autonomy, opposes social control and paternalistic policies.

Let’s create an alternative world, one without liberty, and popular social customs must be followed. If one deviates from these norms, society will ostracize the person until that person conforms to the popular beliefs and values. John Stuart Mill starts off with an argument questioning to what extent “the nature and limits of the power which can legitimately [exercise] by society over the individual” (Mill, n.d., p. Chapter 1). So what if, the nature and limits of power of society know no bounds? This will lead us to the alternative world where liberty and conformity will be social norms. So then Mill goes on and argues that “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind” (Mill, n.d., p. Chapter 2). Mill is proposing new ideas in which there are limits and justification of using that power to silencing the individual but overall believe in the freedom of expression. John Stuart Mill is correct that mankind should not be justifiable in using their power to silence the individual and frankly, they have no right to, if they do silence the individual, they silence development of humanity. This is due to the harm principle, silencing of ideas, individuality, and limits of authority.

Rousseau thought that man was born weak and ignorant, but virtuous. It is only when man became sociable that they became wicked. (Cress, 80) Since civil society makes men corrupt, Rousseau advocated “general will”, more precisely the combined wills of each person, to decide public affairs. General will would become the sovereign and thus it would be impossible for its interests to conflict with the priorities of the citizens, since this would be doing harm to itself. Virtue came from the freedom of men to make decisions for the good of the

power to alter the exchange as it sees fit. If this function of the state is

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?

He presumed that people had enough knowledge and discernment to make moral choices that they could live with. The individual and their personal reflection of right or wrong decided their moral standards. Mill also noted that people had a desire to be accepted by society and they have a fear of being disapproved. Mill believed government should intervene only when one individual may hurt another. People have the freedom to hold and express their own opinions, which would deny the government the ability to choose a majority over a minority. In this government their authority would be limited in its ability to intervene unless an individual was harming another.

Sentiments are described as having all justification of moral beliefs “grounded” in emotions. Mill says, “But there is this basis of powerful natural sentiment; and this it is which, when once the general happiness is recognized as the ethical standard, will constitute the strength of the utilitarian morality,”. By saying this, he is stating that natural sentiment is better, instead of forcing happiness and the actions taken to attain that action, it’s better if it happens on its own. Mill also says that sentiments has two sanctions: External and Internal. External sanctions are instrumental considerations (reward/punishments, favor/disfavor). Internal sanctions are duty; conscience; that we feel good or bad having performed an action. Thus, if internal sanctions provide the strongest influence over people's actions, utilitarianism must appeal to people's inner sentiments in order to exercise a binding force on them.

As John Stuart Mill’s discussion on freedom of speech in chapter two of On Liberty makes the argument that one’s opinions should never be silenced, John Locke writes about the restrictions of the government within a society in The Second Treatise of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration. Both philosophers have drawn valid arguments that still are effective in governments today, including freedom of expression as Mill stated, and also some of the fundamentals of government that Locke touches upon including the government's protection of our life, liberty, and estate in return for taking our executive rights. Although Locke never directly states his opinion on the matter of freedom of speech, based on his arguments about the rights of

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).

John Stuart Mill would evaluate this situation by praising the individuality of Johnson. In the eyes of Mill’s, Johnson helped shape public opinion while promoting liberty and freedom. He would praise him for not conforming to society and social pressure’s by going against the Tribune Company and asking the community to support him.

Throughout the essay On Liberty John Stuart Mill struggles with walking the line between granting society the liberty to act or speak freely and implementing necessary restrictions from both society and government. Mill believes in the principle that living life freely will allow for greater growth and advancement of society, however, when these rights are used irresponsibly intervention is necessary in order to prevent harm to society. This essay will examine the major ways in which Mill feels it acceptable to limit individual liberty for society’s betterment and whether or not they are correct. The three major areas the essay will focus on is groups denied liberty as a whole, society’s ability to create restrictions, and government intervention

Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill were both philosophers who lived in the 1800s. Beginning with Karl Marx, he was a German philosopher, journalist, and revolutionary socialist. In his adult years, Marx was not recognized as a citizen of any country even though he was born in Germany and he spent most of his years in London, England. There, he continued to evolve his philosophy and social thought in participation or collaboration with a German thinker called Friedrich Engels. They worked together and published different books; their most famous and familiar work is the 1848 booklet called The Communist Manifesto, which made an impact on political, intellectual, and economic history. Moving on to John Stuart Mill, he was an English philosopher, a bureaucrat, and a political economist. Not only that, Mill was one of the most prominent thinkers in the history of liberalism, and he participated in any event or anything in general that would help support and contribute to the political economy, social theory, and political theory. Since Mill was a member of the Liberal Party and had very strong opinions and conceptions of liberty, he published one of his famous works called On Liberty, which describes Mill’s theory of moral values of utilitarianism and the foundation of the relationship between dominance and freedom. Furthermore, Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill share very similar propositions or theories on how progression is feasible and that mankind plays the major role in operating

Lastly, Rousseau and Mill think of different features as the essential components of freedom. For Rousseau, it is the idea of general will and for Mill, it is the harm principle. They argue for completely different ideas as Rousseau's general will emphasizes the collective good of a society while Mill's harm principle values individual freedom more. According to Rousseau, the general will is defined as the will that aims to achieve the common good, which would bring the best outcome for the community as a whole. He states that general will is determined by a consensus made among the members of the society. Furthermore, Rousseau argues that each member of the society is an indivisible part of the whole community when they follow the general

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.

The argument Mill makes is characterized by a few premises. The first is that society is known to enforce opinions and beliefs upon the individual in hopes of maintaining a utilitarian good based upon a common set of truths that the society believes in. Due to this, individual liberty is often suppressed for the good of everyone else. When someone has dissenting views, they will be suppressed by the majority. Yet Mill’s believes that dissent is good because it helps to progress society by disconfirming our believes through listening and reasoning with those who are different. By addressing different views, people are able to develop their own ideas and as a society we are able to reach a better understanding of a utilitarian truth. For Mill, humans are not