Mill On Liberty Analysis

Mill, like Nietzsche, is against uniformity of thinking which results in mediocrity. He inveighs against the tyranny of the majority, which imposes its values on everyone. He believes public opinion stifles individuality, and that society imposes its values on others to its detriment. Mill argues that it is crucial to listen to and permit other perspectives in order for creativity and individuality to flourish. So while Nietzsche might view Mill’s construct as part of the problem, Mill similarly clearly advocates for challenging and struggling against accepted or singular norms of thinking. He argues that “whatever crushes

The article explains the author reasons on why America is “racial democracy” and how much of problem it is. The authors Jason Stanley and Weaver first explain where America has gotten their ideas of liberty “Though the liberty of moderns is more familiar to Americans, it is in fact the liberty of the ancients that provides the fundamental justification for the central political ideals of the American Democratic tradition.” The purpose of the author’s explaining this is to later show how America has turned away from their idea which is liberty and how it now became a “racial democracy”.

The balance between the duty of the government, both on a state and federal scale, and the citizens’ view of freedoms has been a continuous struggle throughout the readings. Although many members of America’s youth believe that their participation in politics is aimless, public opinion and voting are very important aspects of shaping the government. Without certain civil rights being granted by the government, these important rights of expression and suffrage would not exist.

Benjamin Franklin once said, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is well-armed lamb contesting that vote.” I believe Franklin’s famous quote means that the majority of the vote does not represent all of the citizen’s interests, and this is unfair. For example, the two wolves would decide to eat the lamb for lunch and the lamb wouldn’t even get a say. However, if liberty (the lamb) had a tree on its property that it wanted to keep and the officials (the wolves) wanted to get rid of it, the lamb would get a say because the majority of the vote wouldn’t matter. The tree is on the lamb’s property, so it wouldn’t matter who else wants it there, because it’s the lamb’s right to keep it. Therefore, there are some matters where there is an imbalance of power in democracy, and other matters where individuals' rights are protected.

Majorities often threaten the rights of minorities. There are only two methods of avoiding evil. The first is to construct a powerful government, a "community will." Such a "will' is larger than, and independent of, the simply majority. This "solution" is dangerous because such a government might throw its power behind a group in society working against the public good. In our country, the authority to govern comes from the entire society the people. In addition, under the Constitution society is divided into many groups of people who hold different views and have different interests. This makes it very difficult for one group to dominate or threaten the minority groups.

Introduction “What are we having this liberty for? We are having this liberty in order to reform our social system, which is full of inequality, discrimination and other things, which conflict with our fundamental rights” (Ambedkar, 1891). Inequality is defined in many ways, but the most unique thing the definitions all have in common is “unequal”. Inequality is used in society every day to discriminate against social groups specifically the minority and individuals that are not classified as wealthy. Having said that, discrimination and hate is what drives a nation's focus into complete destruction.

Ever since the advent of democratic systems of political decision-making in Ancient Greece, one of the primary concerns about democratic functioning has been the principle of majority rule. Whether a majoritarian system is divisive in its essence, paves the way for demagoguery, or obstructs minority groups from having a fair say in public affairs, criticisms of majority rule have and still persist nowadays. Indeed, notorious political figures such as Hamilton, Madison or Mill expressed concerns about the potential threat of a tyranny of the majority which would infringe on citizens’ fundamental rights. Moreover and recently, the outcome of the Brexit referendum has renewed the debate around majority rule and its flaws. However, within the context of the contemporary world in which democracy prevails, majority rule is the norm many states follow. Why is this so; how can majority rule be defended and what are its limits? In order to provide an articulate and coherent answer, it is first necessary to lay down some premises to the functioning of the democratic process. Then, after arguing for majority rule, its flaws shall be assessed before eventually drawing potential alternatives from such dysfunctions.

In Malcom X’s “The Ballot or the Bullet,” Martin Luther King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” and SDS’s “Port Huron Statement,” they all have a similar goal and that’s to argue about the unfair rights given to minorities. As a citizen in America, principles of equality must be given to everyone according to the American Creed. “The American Creed” is an American Universalism, which the United States as the government for the people must establish these principles of freedom, equality and justice. “The American Creed,” strongly reflects the three historical and intellectual contexts in defining American justice. These three intellectuals justify that if the American Creed is to support all people in American society, then it should also represent the people of color.

The founding fathers feared that setting up a democracy where the power is all in the hands of the majority would allow the majority to take control over everyone else in the country. This would directly cause a denial of rights of minorities. Thomas Jefferson said in his inaugural address, “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression”(1). Although defying majority rule may anger the people the government 's most important duty is to protect minority rights rather than following majority rule. The worst result that could occur would be to deny minority rights because of a lack of government protection.

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

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

In Mill’s chapter of individuality, discuss how individuality is necessary for individual human happiness. Individuality comes with the freedom of having an opinion, and by implementing opinions should not have consequences or repercussions from anyone. Individuality signifies freedom from the governance of custom, and being able to think and act from principle or values that one has adopted reflectively and thoughtfully. If everyone thought and act alike there would be no individuality, meaning everyone would lack character. Desires and impulses shape individuality with the development of character “ one who desires and impulses are not his own, has no character, no more than a steam engine has character”, so there are right and wrong, wise

Mill writes that if you have a great mind, then it is your duty to follow your intellect to what it brings you to, and to not let oppositional opinions to stop your from following

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

A weakness of democracy is the “Tyranny of the Majority”. This is an inevitable pitfall, because in a democracy, the power is vested foremost in the people the constituting the society itself. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote on this concept: