John Stuart Mill's Disposition Of Natural Sentiments

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)

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.

The skepticism of other minds is the belief we only have access to our mind and other minds are invisible also to assume that their minds are like ours. The other minds problem comes from a philosophical problem from John Stuart Mill he created the analogical inference to other minds. Descartes was the first on the disconnection of mind from the body and his view that only human’s animals had minds. Similar to Descartes, John Locke believed other people minds are invisible. The problem of other minds is that as human beings we have our own ideas and minds separately from anybody. By examination or observation of one's own mental and emotional processes, I could know what I want or what I’m trying to believe. No one else could feel what

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.

In his work On Liberty, Mill placed much emphasis on individual liberty and its vital role in political society. To Mill, this phrase may be defined as the liberty of the individual to be the final judge over his actions; to decide what is right and wrong and to act upon that standard. On a secondary level, it also implies one's freedom to pursue one's own individuality. Mill believed in a society in which each individual leads his own distinctive life according to his own unique talents; unfettered by regulations upon thought, opinion, actions etc.

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.

John Stuart Mills was in his very essence a progressive thinker of his age. His works are typified by a unique and palpable struggle between the radical utilitarianism espoused by his father and chief educator, and a more idealistic yearning to explore the realm of individual freedom (Williamson, 2005). This struggle is epitomized in his essay ‘On Liberty’: a seminal work that shapes in many ways modern political and legal discourse on the rights of the individual within the state (Mill, [1859] 2005). For the purpose of this essay, focus will be paid to his segments firstly on the “harm principle”, as a minimal restriction on individual freedom, and to his arguments on the circumstance in which actions can be taken to fulfill individual liberty. It is the newly developed nexus between ‘negative’ individual liberty and ‘positive’ state involvement where Mills links classical liberalism to modern liberalism (Heywood, 2007).

In Of the Ultimate Sanction of the Principle of Utility, Mill comments on whether your conscience and its associated feelings are acquired or innate. Like Mill, I agree that the feeling of duty is acquired. Several instances throughout my childhood provide reason enough for the

In Chapter 3, Mills writes about individuality as one of the elements of Well-Being. In this Chapter, he writes about originality. It is a valuable element in human affairs. Originality is always needed for people to discover new truths and point out what use to be truths is no longer a truth. This overall gives a better taste and sense in human life. Mill then writes about genius. Genius can only be freely in an atmosphere of freedom. Genius people are more individual than any other people. At the end of the Chapter, Mill writes about customs. He believes that most of the world has no history, because of the despotism of custom is complete. Countries in the Eastern World would fit into this category. In Chapter 4, Mill writes about the limits

Mill's principle of utility seeks for the logical rationality of ethics through the consequences of actions as the consideration determining their morality, therefore the possession of happiness as opposed to the avoidance of pain. Utilitarianism might be an instance of a more general theory of right consequentialism, which supports that right and wrong can only, be reviewed by the kindness of consequences. This common kind of theory can be easily understood by considering the form of consequentialism. Consequentialism states that an act is right if, of those accessible to the agent at the time, it would produce the most overall value in the end. Utilitarian

Inhibition of one's liberty, such as their liberty of conscience (i.e. freedom of speech), is unjust by Millian principles, unless the person's use of deliberation is to voice hate speech. So what is hate speech? Hate speech is directed towards a member of a group, or the group as a whole, that vilifies on the basis of the subject's beliefs. In comparison to discriminatory speech, hate speech does not invoke mere offense, but in most cases is traumatic, and severely impair one’s deliberative capacities, or their mental faculties (judgment, moral preference, intuition, etc…). Liberties have been established to protect our deliberative abilities, as these are conducive to achieving happiness, which to Mill is the individual's primary goal. So why should we regulate hate speech? Although it is important to allow people's freedom of expression, as this is conducive to promoting one's individuality, hate speech can stigmatize one's character, and for this reason hate speech is not always morally, or legally permissible. To better understand hate speech's importance, I will describe Mill's argument in favor of prohibiting hate speech, following this I will object to Mill's rejection of hate speech, finally, I will show why hate speech should be regulated, and why allowing it is dangerous to humans, and society as a whole. Freedom of expression is imperative for improving one’s character, but not all forms of opinions', such as hate speech, should have full freedom to be

The relationships between Dr. Andrey Yefimitch Ragin’s and Mihail Averyanotch, Pedro Paramo’s and Dolores Preciado, and Elesin’s and his new bride; all support Mill’s position that individuals may use impose their individual beliefs, such as their superiority, on others which might prevent people from forming their own individuality. In Ward No. 6 by Anton Chekhov, Dr. Ragin start out as being the controlling individual who imposes his beliefs on immortality and superiority on Mihail. However, it seems as the story progresses, Mihail keeps trying to convince Dr. Ragin to go to a mental hospital and will not leave Dr. Ragin alone because he believes that he needs company. In Pedro Paramo by Juan Rulfo, Pedro keeps controlling Dolores’ behavior because he believes that men are superior to women. In Death and the King’s Horseman by Wole Soyinka, Elesin controls his bride’s behavior because he also believes that men are superior to women Overall, these male individuals impose their negative beliefs onto the people they have a relationship with causing these people to

This means the intentions behind our actions are insignificant because the only thing that is important is our good moral deeds. For example, imagine a man who is overweight begins to exercise to lose weight and become more attractive to the women who encounter him. He finally achieves his intended weight goal; however he still finds that no women have taken interest in him. Mill would find the man’s act immoral because the man was not able to produce the greatest amount of happiness among the women he encountered. The intentions of the man were to bring about happiness for himself and the women that he encountered, but that didn’t matter because his actions did not achieve anyone happiness. If an individual isn’t able to achieve happiness for themselves and those affected by his action, then there is no morality behind their actions. This is the reason why society plays such a large role in Mill’s theory because our actions are dependent on their happiness. If our actions bring happiness upon those in society then our actions are deemed morally good. Society’s level of happiness defines whether our actions are moral or

On the other hand, a philosopher named John Stuart Mill who believed that any ethical dilemma should be solved by how many people are affected by it. Mill talk about Utilitarianism and Utilitarianism is the belief that the majority of the people should benefit from your decision. He would say that you should not hold people higher than other people in the ethical dilemma that you are facing in your life. He uses rational thought in making these decision to make as many people happy. An example of Utilitarianism in action is the Trolley Experiment. The Trolley Experiment is when you have a trolley coming down the track, and you are standing beside a lever that changes the direction of the cart. On the current rout of the cart, it will hit five

“Absolute liberty is the absence of restraint; responsibility is restraint; therefore, the ideally free individual is responsible to himself” - Henry Brooks Adams. There has been great debate, past and present with regards to what constitutes as an individuals liberty. It has been subject to constant ridicule and examination due to violations of civil rights. Freedom, liberty, and independence are all important human rights represented within John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty.