Mill individuality essay

This essay argues that John Stuart Mill's On Liberty presents a strong case for individuality of citizens, challenging the role of paternalism through autonomous social progress and utilitarian values. On the other hand, it is shown that Mill's arguments against public regulations are very narrow, and his own ideas frequently adhere to paternalism, thus creating a weak defence against state control politics.

Mill claims that his purpose in writing on liberty is to assert what he describes one very simple principle. The principle that ought to govern society and that principle has come to be known as the harm principle. The individuals own good either physical or moral is not a sufficient warrant for societal intervention. The individual cannot rightfully be compelled to do or not to do because it will be better for him to do so because it is better for him to do so because it will make him happier.

He states that when values are in the employ of a slave strategy, then distancing oneself from them allows greater freedom of the will. He argues for maintaining distance from conventional values as crucial for freedom. This connects to Mill, who agrees with the idea that one should not have to conform to a singular, universal viewpoint, and would likely view Nietzsche’s argument itself as helpful for individual freedom. Mill only limits the extent to which Nietzsche could act on his own invented morality as it impinges on the rights of others. In fact, Mill would likely argue that Nietzsche’s creative thinking, even his argument against utility, is crucial for individuality and freedom. By being a nonconformist, Nietzsche brings originality to the world and makes people have to rethink their perspectives.

Mill has an “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” standpoint. If a person commits a terrible crime, they are nowhere near reaching a desirable end, nor do they have capacity to be virtuous, as Aristotle would say. If somebody is guilty of murder, then life in jail is too mild of a punishment for the crime he committed. It goes the other way around too. If somebody is guilty of theft, then life in jail may be too hard of a punishment for that particular crime. Mill believes the only efficient punishment is one that is exactly equal to the crime. He doesn’t think a murderer should be allowed to live on with the potential to murder again. Another thing Mill focuses on is general responses among a society. He believes the only way to find desirable pleasure is to ask people and get a general response. So if you asked the family of a murder victim what they would like to see happen to the murderer, a probable general response would be to have him sentenced to death as well, and that is exactly what should happen.

Throughout his work Mill explains his principles and what he believes our laws should look like. In Mill’s harm principle he states

According to Mill, the ideal conditions for both a society and individual to flourish exist when the prevailing opinion in society favors individuals with non-normative, original ideas. Mill, somewhat gratuitously,

Mill’s harm principle of ““One should not interfere with other people’s lives unless those people are doing harm to others” (p.G3), is in other words, if a person do not cause harm to others, there is no reason to prevent his/her actions. Mill’s belives that an individual is the supreme sovereign of his/her own acts. Even when the decisions taken may be some harm upon him/her, the responsibility of these actions is only on the individual.

The existence of “the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling” (Mill 4) also constrains an individual’s personal liberty. In On Liberty, Mill wrote that “the mass do not now take their opinions from “the mass do not now take their opinions from dignitaries in Church or State, from ostensible leaders, or from books. Their thinking is done for them by men much like themselves” (63). Mill believed that the majority in the society tends to impose their own ideas and practices onto other people. This will eventually cause the minority opinion to be completely omitted and silenced. Moreover, the majority is not guaranteed to be correct, and could not be falsified as result of no open discussion or debate. This lack of discussion could only fetter and hinder the development and the formation of character. Mill wrote “However unwilling a person who has a strong opinion may admit the possibility that his opinion may be false, he ought to be moved by the consideration that, however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living” (34). In a society where dead dogmas are prevalent, no individuals can obtain complete freedom. This is because no one will have the courage to challenge and circulate new and original ideas that can help them achieve liberty. The members of the society will live in a world where no one will construct new ideas, and no one will discover and spread the ultimate truths. Instead, the people will cling

The popular idea of social contract, that society was something that people in some way agreed to be a part of, and that defined rights as things people agreed to have protected by society, and duties as things people would agree to take obligation over, Mill did not agree with. Due to his disagreement with this idea, the argument that because people receive certain protection of society, they owed certain conduct in return did not work in favor of his argument. Mill instead uses the argument that in the case that people do not conduct themselves appropriately, as long as they don’t violate anyone else’s rights, but do in some way “harm” another individual, they should only be censured by opinions, not by the law in any way. Mill showed his strong disapproval for the interference of law in people’s actions, which were only affecting that specific individual. This idea meant that if a person was distantly impacted by a person’s actions such as death, or illness due to poor

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

Explain in your own words the logic of Mill’s argument, and critically discuss whether happiness should be the criterion of morality.

John Stuart Mill, an English philosopher and a political economist, had an important part in forming liberal thought in the 19th century. Mill published his best-known work, _On Liberty,_ in 1859. This foundational book discusses the concept of liberty. It talks about the nature and the limits of the power performed by society over an individual. The book also deals with the freedom of people to engage in whatever they wish as long as it does not harm other persons.

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

Mill’s belief promotes that each individual’s opinion is important and therefore should be listened to by the government. The government would not be able to turn a blind eye to a minority; this is one of many influences on classical liberalism. In classical liberalism the government has limited say in the economy and ensures that everyone has the right to his or her freedom of opinion. An

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.