John Stuart Mill Is A Man Essay

In John Stuart Mill’s second chapter in On Liberty, he discusses the liberty of thought and discussion, and more importantly, describes the importance of dissenting opinion. Mill describes that the “peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race.” (Mill 614). He argues, “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.” (Mill 615). It is important to notice the distinction between the certainty of the public and absolute certainty. Mill absolutely rejects the idea that truths can be accepted without hearing dissenting opinion. As he says,

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.

He feels that the opinions of mankind should be heard, even in instances were they differ from one another. (Mill 1) Mill thinks that a person, who knows only their side of the story, does not know nearly enough to come to a good conclusion. A person cannot know his or her own position until he or she knows the opposing position. Mill explained that anyone who would suppress someone else’s voice needs to have an argument that they can be absolutely certain, without doubt, about. (Mill 2) This is part of the infallibility argument. The bottom line is no one is infallible, because there is no way to be absolutely certain whether or not what we believe is true or false. (Mill 1) If there is any suppressing or silencing of discussion, it is an assumption of infallibility. If we are all fallible, how is it that we can say any argument is greater than any other? Technically we cannot, because we can be wrong about any and everything. (Mill

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

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

In order to consider the problem of income inequality from Mill’s perspective, it is of imperative importance to first grasp an understanding of what factors contributed to the development of his key ideas. Known as one of the most influential figures in classical economics, Mill is more commonly described as a philosopher and socialist than an economist due to his obstinate strive for progressive social reform throughout his

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

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

It can be assumed that if J.S. Mill and Lord Devlin ever coexisted some intoxicating deliberations regarding the role of morality in society would transpire. However, time has a peculiar habit of erecting boundaries amid centuries, allowing us only to presume discourse between the contemporary and the historical. Consequentially, each individual has an obligation to formulate his or her own appraisal established through the logistic unification of the particular instant and one's own conception of idealistic righteousness. But the acquisition of an infallible and tangible philosophy with universal application would be as obstinate to create as it would to fathom. In such regard, the apparatus on

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.

Lucius Beebe critically analyzes Edwin Arlington Robinson’s, The Mill best. Beebe’s analysis is from an objective point of view. He points out to the reader that what seems so obvious may not be. She notes “The Mill is just a sad little tale of double suicide brought on by the encroachment of the modern world and by personal loss.” Thus meaning The Mill carries a deeper underlying theme. Lucius Beebe expresses that a minor overflow of significant details has been exposed over Edwin Arlington Robinson's "The Mill," much of it concerned with whether the miller's wife did indeed drown herself after the miller had hanged himself. Another, even more provocative question has never been asked: did the

Mills of course does not just mean amiable discussions regarding similar opinions but focuses on the importance of protecting dissenting viewpoints. Mill claims that “opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility” (Mills, 88). This is is to protect against what Mill calls social tyranny of the majority. Social Tyranny of the majority is when the majority viewpoint dominants what happens in a society and silences or ignores any other minority opinion or idea (Mill). This silencing of discussion can lead to the stagnation of society as the flow of civilization follows the majority rule and is not advanced through the development and understanding of dissenting viewpoints. Mill recognizes that truth is a fluid topic, with every person developing their own truths based off lived experience and what is important to them, not one person can claim to know the whole truth. Just because the majority views the truth one way, does not mean the minority is wrong and should not be treated as such. Censoring of these viewpoints does not make the majority any more correct, it just closes down a way to view something differently which may improve the majority

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

John Stuart Mill was a British philosopher who was born on May 20, 1806 in London, England, to Harriet Burrow and James Mill, a noted economist, philosopher and historian. James Mill was an educated man who was heavily involved in an early 19th century movement called 'philosophic radicalism, ' a school of thought also known as Utilitarianism, which highlighted the demand for a scientific foundation for philosophy, as well as a humanist approach to economics politics. It was this foundation from which James Mill urged and advanced his eldest son 's education from a very early age. John Stuart studied Greek at age three and Latin at eight, and he was asked to recite everything he had learned to his father every day. John Stuart also studied mathematics and science for his personal enjoyment and would engage in long discussions with his father about histories and biographies that he had read. It is interesting to note that John Stuart was also empowered with the responsible for educating his eight younger siblings. His childhood comprised of a strict environment of learning, teachings and tutoring, however, John Stuart felt that he was emotionally compromised by his father’s educational plan. Although John Stuart never actually attended university, by the age of twenty, he essentially had a postgraduate self-education in logic, political economy and law. As an adult, John Stuart once stated that, out of all of his studies, teachings and education, the element that he

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.