Locke vs Mill

Without using reason in our everyday lives, society will collapse and turn into nothing but chaos. During the Enlightenment, a time when reason was beginning to be applied to the people’s thoughts, there were many great thinkers, but there were three in particular that attempted to change society’s unreasonable thinking. Voltaire, John Locke, and Mary Wollstonecraft all believed in freedom of choice; however, they believed in different branches of freedom of choice such as religion, government, and women’s education.

Locke’s thought on having a king, laws, and a civil society under a social contract was so all men can enjoy and protect their rights. Where all men obtain the right to life, all humans have the right to live and life shouldn't be taken away from another human being. The right to liberty, protecting an individual's freedom and unreasonable detention. The right to property, a citizen in which Locke thought a human's labour was his own, anything created or made should remain that individuals as well and the right to rebel against unjust rulers and laws.

In his Second Treatise on Government Locke focus’ on liberalism & capitalism, defending the claim that men are by nature free and equal against the idea that God had made all people subject to a king. He argued that people have ‘natural rights’, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that hold the foundation for the major laws of a society. He says, “…we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit.” (2nd Treatise, Chapter 2, sec 4). John Locke used this claim, that all men were naturally free and equal, for understanding the idea of a government as a result of a social contract. This is where people in the state of nature transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better guarantee the steady and comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property.

This paper is about John Locke who was a philosopher in the 17-century. He was an Englishmen and his ideas formed the basic concept for the government and laws, which later allowed colonist to justify revolution. I agree with what Locke is saying because everybody should be able to have their own freedom and still respect the freedom of other people. John said, “Individuals have rights, and their duties are defined in terms of protecting their own rights and respecting those of others”. This paper will present to you information about his enlightenment, personal information, and how we as people feel about his decisions.

Locke’s writing helped inspired many, but impacted mostly the western philosophy (“John Locke: Biography.”) In Locke’s milestone, Two Treatises of Government claimed his revolutionary viewpoint, the natural rights of man and the social contract (“James Harrington Encyclopedia.”) Both impression not only overwrought in England, but also encounter the cognoscenti that formed the later American French Revolution. At the time of England’s downfall, Locke became involved in creating a clear objective for the government. Locke believed the government should be limited and should protect the life, property, and liberty of citizens. Locke wanted a government that met the needs of the people, which is what the makers of the constitution took into account when they set up the legislative branch. The legislative branch is made up of the Senate and House of Representatives. Locke was a long time influence of America, especially when he said “being all equal

To understand their views on revolt, and when it is justified, one must first review the responsibilities each believes the government to have. To Locke, the government works to preserve innate rights, that is, rights

His views towards the government was merely about making sure that there was a social contract to protect people’s natural rights. However, people had the right to break the contract if the government did not comply. We can clearly identify previous statements on his Second Treatise Of Government. In his writings, he believed that the rights of God-given can never be taken or given away. Every man or woman has an equal, natural right to live freely as he or she sees fit, Locke said.

Even though academic study has frequently engaged with the question as to what form of government is ideal and what should be the goal of the government , there cannot be one absolute answer to this question , not merely because there has been no consensus among the scholarly community but because these questions cannot be detached from the polities which will bear the implications of the answer. Hence , it is pertinent that they must be looked at in a particular context. Mill argues for a representative government where sovereignty is vested in the aggregate of the community while Locke advocates majoritarian rule where legislative is supreme, though he prescribes certain limitations on it, and is coupled with a powerful executive. At the

If we were to live in a society where John Stuart Mill’s harm principle was the only normative basis for law, we would live in a society in which racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression could never be dealt away with, a society in which no business owner could be judicially discouraged from putting up a sign that says, “WHITES ONLY,” or “NO JEWS,” outside of his or her business, and as a result, a society that would be constantly teetering from one outbreak of genocidal violence to another. Perhaps this might seem like an over dramatization, but the fact of the matter is, if “the only purpose for which power [could] be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community…[were] to prevent harm to others,” than by anyone’s count,

Pillar one is the offense principle and is mentioned in Mill's, “On Liberty” on pg 13, “...the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That is the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” Several instances where Mill contradicts that this is the only Libertimiting Principle are explained and supported in the following paragraph.

Mill wastes no time in articulating the central thesis of On Liberty; he states, "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign" (69). Mill, then, does not make the individual more important than society, but he separates the individual from society and articulates a realm of existence in which society, or the community, should have no power over the individual. Mill states, "The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection…His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant" (68). Society, therefore, has no right to intervene in the private life of any person, unless they act in such a way that prevents others from enjoying their own rights.

John Stuart Mill published an essay in 1859 that attempted to explain the power society could have over the individual. His essay focuses on the struggles between Liberty and Authority. The point he was trying to make is liberty was created for protection against political tyranny. In earlier times rulers would suppress the rights of citizens. To achieve their liberty the citizens call for a limit to be placed on the power of the government.

Having a government try to make the best decisions for everyone is the same as using Mill’s main belief. The best action is the one that will benefit the most amount of people. If there is an action that will influence only one person or a certain group of people, then it is probably not the best decision and the people should suppress their opinion. We are always told to do the best for ourselves and others. According to Mill, we need to do the best for the greatest amount of people. Having an individual keep their opinions or idea to themselves will lead to a benefit for more people. For example, an individual believes that including more healthy options on college campuses will help eating disorders among the younger age group. Letting a school director express this opinion will lead to a benefit in many students across campus. This shows how people should make decisions based on how many people will be positively affected by the decision made. Mill argues that there are higher and lower pleasures

In On Liberty, Mill also states that society must listen to both sides of an argument. Through discussion of both sides, a truth can possibly be reached with both sides agreeing. Mills harm principle is the limitation that is put on the individual while exercising his/her freedom of speech. Also, Mill justifies “If 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.” Lastly Mill’s philosophy can be applied to America Alone – Mark Steyn and Mclean’s Magazine.

The state of nature must abide by three important principles: no government, complete freedom, and perfect equality. While the guarantee of these three truths may be bumpier than they sound, a state of nature is when all of these should theoretically exist. First, the government would be absolutely absent, as it is “what state all men are naturally in” (Chapter 2, Section 4). Locke is clear about the need for this as a beginning. We do not begin with a premade government, we begin with the state of nature. This