On Liberty John Stuart Mill Summary

Mill clearly states this by saying, “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.” (13) Mill continues by saying that one cannot intervene for the sake of the person’s own good, or for their happiness; it is only when others are affected by one’s decisions that interference is warranted. While Mill’s definition of liberty may seem acceptable at first glance, a question of what constitutes as harm remains. Once cannot lead a healthy public life if one does not understand what constitutes as harm, and when their actions can be considered harmful. Until harm is clearly defined, what one

Free speech is the backbone that holds democracy together.  Without a free speech, ideas would not be challenged, governments would not be kept in check, and citizens would not be free.  John Stuart Mill said once 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 then he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”( Roleff, 21). The right to free speech is essential to “egalitarian democracy,”(Tsesis) however, this right is not absolute and must be limited in certain situations.

According to Mills, government should not be attempting to control individual freedoms, but should be helping individuals develop in society. A society is only as great as the people who are in it. How a person develops should be up to them, but a government should support that development. Ensuring a free flow of factual information and opportunities for open discussion are ways a government can help. Again, he uses history as his support. He says that the history of mankind is a history of intellectual and social progress. All of the advances of our history are based on man's desire to move away from ignorance. We are the only species that has the capacity to reason and develop our intellect for our own benefits. It is the development

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 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.

In chapter 2 of “On Liberty,” Mill concludes that people’s opinions should not be silenced as long as it sticks to “fair discussion.” If a person will subject their opinions to other’s criticism of it, then they should not be silenced. Hume makes three important points throughout this chapter of his book.

One of the fundamental principles of the US Constitution is the freedom of speech. Something so ingrained in the country, that it is often an afterthought for many Americans. John Stuart Mill believes that freedom of expression and speech is a necessity for the human race to advance and evolve. Mill’s justification of this absolute freedom come from the understanding that mistakes and choices made by the person leads to progress and the development of your individual self. He also argues that speech must be absolute because the only way harm can truly come about, is through action. Mill’s harm principle states that, the only reason for power to be legitimately exercised over a people is to prevent harm to others. It also sought to limit the actions of a possible tyrannical majority that begins to impose its interests on the public.

He believed that through increased education, a person could make quality choices through inductive reasoning of the world around them and understanding what was best for them (APUS,1). Mill expressed this belief when he wrote that “as we learn more about the world, induction becomes more and more established, and with this it becomes self-critical and systematic.” (Mill, 1). Through this, Mill believed that people of different levels in society, could begin to find common ground and more closely align decisions that were based on the greatest happiness principle (Macleod, 1). The goal in which Mill theorizes is that when people are afforded unfettered liberty, there is little need for state control or a social

The dominant idea of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty is the harm principle, the assertion that society can only intervene with the action of an individual when said action harms or heightens the probability of harm to another individual without their consent. However Mill offers in addition a noteworthy caveat to the harm principle. He asserts that society can also intervene when the choice of the individual is to irrevocably surrender their liberty even when said action harms only themselves

The book starts off by discussing the fact that liberty is important to protect individuals against political tyranny of overzealous rulers. Citizens of the society were beginning to realize that in order for them to achieve liberty the government would have to step in, and act as a instrument of the peoples will. Whatever the majority chose in a society was what the government would have to go with as its main purpose should be to serve the best interest of the citizens. Mill recognizes this new so-called victory of the people is nothing they assume its like to be, its in fact just a way for a new type of tyranny; the type of prevailing opinion. This type of tyranny is far worse and more evil as it silences the voice of the minority, and lets the majority rule. The minority of a society should be able to state their opinion even if it may be wrong, right, or even part of the truth. According to Mill, everyone’s contribution is extremely important in a community. Mill states that society should not impose its values on anyone because even though the majority choses one path, it doesn’t mean that they are right because human opinion is error-prone and thus we should listen and not be so judgmental on the opinions of those who don’t agree with majority. The majority group if people who choose one path may not always realize that they might be making a error in judgment which those in minority can be able to see. Mills

It is a common misunderstanding that utility and pleasure are not the same. Utility is pleasure itself and takes into consideration the quality and quantity of pleasure from the actions taken. The happiness principle says that actions are right if they promote happiness, or pleasure, and wrong if they cause pain. Mill believes that some pleasures are more desirable than others due to the complexity of the human mind, making it harder for us to be happy, therefore making some states of happiness higher quality than others. Mill ultimately says that people with open minds will be happier due to different varieties of interest while people with narrow minds will have a harder time being happy. According to utility, we can’t enjoy pleasure without

This research paper focuses on the life of John Stuart Mill and how it affected his economic theories. John Stuart Mill’s grew up unlike most, raised since his adolescence to be the face of utilitarianism. This upbringing may have had some effect on his theories and overall beliefs in his economic policies.

In the first chapter, Mill provides a brief overview of the meaning of liberty. Mill focuses on a historical review of the concept of liberty, starting with ancient Greece and Rome and continuing on to England. In the past, liberty primarily meant protection from tyranny, but throughout time, the meaning of liberty changed along with the role of rulers. He also talks about his argument in favor of respecting liberty to the point that it does not harm anybody else. In the second chapter, Mill focuses on the issue of weather or not people should be able to restrict others expressions of opinion. He believes that silencing opinions is unlawful and he explains that in this quote: “The peculiar evil of silencing the

“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.

The freedom to be able to express your own opinion is an ideology that is supported by many, however the act of promoting harm or hate is where freedom should be restricted. Freedom of speech is a right for citizens of many countries, but these citizens may agree or disagree on what is allowed to be expressed. Many people share the belief that they can say anything they want because their freedom entitles them to express any opinion they would like. In contrast, many people believe that you shouldn’t be able to say anything you want and that there should be restrictions on the type of things that you can say. In the novel On Liberty by John Stuart Mill, Mill argues that freedom of speech should be limited if and when it is harming other people in the process. Mill explains this argument by stating that silencing an unpopular opinion is unjustifiable because in order to successfully express your opinion, you must listen to the criticism. I agree with Mill’s position regarding freedom of speech based on the fact that he doesn’t support hate speech, and that there should be reasonable limits on freedom of speech in order to have an ideal democratic society. This essay will outline the justifications for Mill’s argument surrounding freedom of speech, the limitations that Mill believes should be set on freedom of speech as well as the assumptions that his argument depends on, and finally my personal viewpoint on Mill’s argument. Freedom of speech is a right that should be guaranteed to every citizen around the world, however when this speech negatively affects or harms other humans in the process, it is thereby considered hate speech which must be condemned.