John Stuart Mill's Argument Analysis

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.

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.

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.

Humans are the most complex beings in the universe; at least based on our perception. We have achieved so much, as we have destroyed equally. Created in a world full of unexplored wonders and knowledge, we constantly seek for the true meaning of our wary existence. Those who see past the picture displayed try to find a better understanding of the roles we play, and our importance in terms of coexisting. Existing in a perception of peace, morality as always being the big staple on societies within its grip. To show a higher intellect and understanding of the world, Philosophers throughout the years have presented their views on what they believe to be good or bad. These views often collide as many shape their views on their perception and experiences. Morality remain an illusion and is highly subjective; based on my views of course. One of the many brilliant minds is John Stuart Mill a philosopher that carries the views I have to a considerate satisfaction.

Mill’s rebuttal to the third objection is based off that Christians do not read the Bible every time they have to make decisions. Furthermore, Mill says that ever since humans have existed we have learned from our ancestors what certain effects result from certain actions and that through time we have the consciousness to tell apart from what’s right and wrong. It is true that as humans we want to perform actions that promote pleasure and the absence of pain, but most of our human experiences follow common-sense morality. Mill provides a distinction in utilitarianism where he gives a fundamental principle of morality and a subordinate principle through what he calls the criterion of rights and the decision procedure: “Whatever we adopt as

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

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.

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).

I believe in good intentions, good will, and being optimistic that everything would work out fine. At the same time, I am pragmatic. Having said this, I would have to support Mill’s theory of morality because this theory is more practical in our society.

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.

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.