John Stuart Mill's Argument Analysis

Mill's “harm principle” talks about being able to have control over others. Thus being able to use power over another person can be used against his will in order to keep that person form committing harm against himself or another person. The “harm principle” is not intended to include children. This implies only to people who are considered of mature mind and body. Those that are not mature in mind and body, still in the eyes of the law are required to be taken care of and be protected against their own and against external injury (Bonevac, 168).

John Stuart Mill’s explanation of the harm principle is not as useful as once believed. Although the harm principle does in fact have some logic, it fails to set clear and concise borders regarding what denotes allowable hate speech. The harm principle essentially states that all speech, including hate speech, should be allowed. However, speech that causes a definable harm must be censored. For example, merely offensive speech is allowed; however, the context of the offensive speech in question is important in understanding when to apply Mill’s harm principle. The principle has some major flaws, as Mill does not take into consideration the numerous factors that must be examined before deciding whether or not to apply the principle, such as

Some may believe that the Greatest Utility Principle may be too high of a standard. This principle focuses on the idea of happiness. The Greatest Utility Principle demands that we ought to do the greatest good for the greatest number. In some instances, this is possible. However, in other instances it seems like it is an unreal expectation. Overall, the Greatest Utility Principles seems to be too high of a standard. For example, a murder on the NU campus could seem morally valid.

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.

Mill claims that morals find their root in Utility, otherwise called the Greatest Happiness Principle.(513) The essence of this is that actions are right in proportion to how much happiness results from them and wrong in proportion to how much they cause the reverse of it.(513) In defending this, he claims that

Freedom is a necessary principle to abide by in order for the human race to function. On the other hand, freedom can be taken advantage of, thus resulting in harmful consequences to those directly and indirectly involved. The article, “On Liberty” by John S. Mills, places emphasis on the functioning of individual liberty and its co-existence with society. Mills stresses the limits of individual liberty through what is famously known as his Harm Principle: "the only purpose for which power may be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant" (Cahn). With special consideration placed on drug use and free

A thought experiment was described to me as a way of testing a hypothesis in your mind without doing a physical experiment. For example if i deside to drink and get drunk knowing I have to drive then, I will not be able to opperate a motor vehical and drive home,the concequences of me deciding to drink to much would be a friend having to drive me or having to leave my car parked and uber home.

In John Stuart Mill’s profound work On Liberty, he preaches against the conformity of the nations and outwardly encourages and restlessly defends voice of the individual. The philosopher expresses the importance of individuality by warning against forces such as the government and other citizens silencing their opinion. Though Mill gives due recognition to virtues such as free speech, liberty, and individualism, he also rightly places limitations on our freedoms to ensure that they do not infringe upon the ones of those around us. In essence, I believe that Mill’s insightfully provides a logical answer to society on how to live and how to allow others to live; freely unless harm will ensue. By Mill 's statement that, “[i]f all mankind minus one were of one 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” one can gain insights into the assumptions his argument is grounded upon, his justification for these assumptions, the limitations that should rightly be placed on free speech, and my overall opinion on Mill’s argument on free speech.

Utilitarianism - the direction in moral philosophy based J. Bentamomv treatise "Introduction to the principles of morals and legislation" (1780) and developed in its classical form and is called utilitarianism. JC Mila ("Utilitarianism", 1863). Mill formulated the basic arguments of utilitarianism. numerous objections against critics; main pathos myllevskoy controversy was directed against apryoryzma and yntuytyvyzma and personally - against Kant and his English followers. According to utilitarianism, morality is a common good (happiness as most people), which Bentham called the common good, definitely distinguishing it from the benefit or personal gain. The principle benefit he understood the principle of action selection and evaluation of actions, which focuses on the maximum benefit more. If the action affects the interests of the community, then it is a benefit (happiness) community, if - the interests of the individual, then it is a benefit of the individual. Formula common good - "the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people" - met before, F. Hutcheson, Charles

Before Mill could analyse the concepts of Utilitarianism his first action was to break down any barriers that caused people to turn away from its insights. All actions exist as a means to promote a particular end; thus an action may only be deemed right or wrong based on the desired outcome of said action. If the sought out ends cause suffering towards others, the actions will be considered to have been bad; just the same as if an end causes happiness, the actions that caused this result will be deemed as good. Therefore, having a standard as to how humans can be judged between good and bad is necessary. Mill argues that “particular truth precedes general theory” (p. 2), unlike the rules of applicable sciences we know of, ethics demands ‘general laws’ in order for

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.

According to Mill, good actions lead to pleasure and define good character. Mill can be characterized as an act utilitarian in regard to the theory of objective rightness, but as a rule utilitarian in regard to the theory of moral obligation. He defines morality as a system of rules that is

Firstly, utilitarianism promotes individual liberty and places certain restrictions on the limits of authority. Society has the right to punish an individual only to prevent harm against another individual. The ‘harm principle’ states that, “That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (Mill, 2014, p.

In this paper I will be discussing the topic of “How Can I Know What is Right?”. I will be using the works of “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals” by Immanuel Kant and “What Utilitarianism Is” by John Stuart Mill. Immanuel Kant was a philosopher who believed that nothing in this world can be conceived as good except goodwill. John Mill was a philosopher that said that it does not matter the intention as long as there is a benefit. In this paper I will be arguing Kant over Mill.

Mill 's Utilitarianism and Ross ' Intuitionalism both use moral intuitions as core components of their moral theories, but their valuation of these intuitions in making morally sound decisions differ. I will argue that it is this misevaluation of moral intuition in the Utilitarian tradition that makes the moral theory unstable and prone to criticism. Ross ' deontological approach to moral intuitions provides a more believable, and morally acceptable account of the role these intuitions play in making ethical decisions. In this paper, I will begin with underlying both Ross ' and Mill 's valuation of moral intuitions in the framework of their moral theories, followed by a brief explanation of each philosopher 's view of “what makes an act moral”. Having established these I will, with the aid of a brief anecdote, describe my difficulties with Mill 's utilitarian approach to ethics. Finishing with an assessment of some utilitarian complaints about Ross ' theory. Ultimately Utilitarianism provides a commendable theory for widely applicable and practical moral action, but its inability to address conflicts with strong moral intuitions weakens its argument. Ultimately Ross ' more flexible, yet not relativistic, deontological intuitionalism becomes a more attractive moral theory.