Originality In John Stuart Mill's Influence On Society

Benjamin Franklin’s most important virtue is moderation, without it many individuals could get disorientated to the point where stimulation dominants their daily lives. Benjamin Franklin said, “Avoid extremes. Forebear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.” However, the extreme consequence of moderation is that the creativity in many individuals wouldn’t exist. If the new ideas and inspirations of creative individuals can’t grow than evolution can’t take place. Therefore, if moderation is used carefully in a society, it is an important virtue for present and future generations.

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)

In the conceptualization of the predominant 19th century political thought process, none- if any- were more influential than John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx. Both were philosophers, sociologists, economists and political thinkers, but each held unique views towards the ideal government, to freedom, and to the impact of the industrial revolution. Each discussed some of the ramifications of the industrial revolution, and the ways in which the government can be re-aligned for greater social prosperity. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) advocated for Liberalism, a system in which liberty and equality would remain at the forefront of all political proposals, and representative interests. Mill celebrated individuality, and the ability to not conform to a higher power. In contrast to Mill, Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a revolutionary socialist who advocated for a complete social revolution throughout society, in an effort to counter the ill perceived effects of capitalism. Marx’s central tenet relied upon the fact that he sought to abolish private property, and monopolies, so as to enable all individuals to acquire an equitable means of living. Marx’s belief was that capitalism forces the economy into constantly being exploited, which in turn leads to recessions. Mill believed that all power should be allocated to the individual; whereas Marx believed that bestowing such power within a socialist regime would allow for the creation of a truly egalitarian society. This paper will analyze how

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.

John Stuart Mill and Aristotle both address the idea of happiness as the goal of human life. They explain that all human action is at the foundation of their moral theories. Mill addresses the Greatest Happiness Principle, which is the greatest amount of pleasure to the least amount of pain. Similarly, Aristotle addresses happiness through the idea of eudaimonia and human flourishing. According to Aristotle, eudaimonia is happiness, it is the state of contemplation that individuals are in when they have reached actualized happiness. Also referred to as happiness or human flourishing, it is the ultimate goal of human beings. Happiness is “living well and acting well.” He explains that once general happiness becomes recognized as the moral standard, natural sentiment will nurture feelings that promote utilitarianism. According to Aristotle, happiness is a state of being. Both Mill and Aristotle agree that in order to attain true happiness, human beings must engage in activities that are distinct to humans and that make them happy. Aristotle’s idea of eudaimonia and human flourishing is a more compelling argument than Mill’s for happiness and the final end because Aristotle explains that the virtues bring human beings to happiness.

In this paper I am going to attempt to answer a question utilizing a little help from one of two philosophers. First of all the question I will be answering is “Should the moral value of an action be determined by the intentions/character that inspire the action, or the consequences that result from the action?” Second, the philosophers I am going to discuss throughout this paper are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Now before I tell you my answer to this question I am going to explain these who these two philosophers are and what their viewpoints on ethics are.

Many great economic thinkers throughout history has offered various differing yet interrelated views and ideas that may prove useful to the analysis of current issues in modern economics. A persistent issue in the modern economy is income inequality whereby the distribution of income among the population is unequal. This means that the gap between the rich and the poor increases over time if the issue is not appropriately addressed. In exploring the issue of income inequality in Australia, this essay aims to analyse the issue from the perspective of a selected economic thinker – namely John Stuart Mill – by: (1) providing a summary of Mill’s key ideas and theories, including the different forces that may have shaped his thinking; (2) applying Mill’s conceptual framework to the income inequality problem; and (3) offer solutions he might have suggested to address this problem, including policies that may be adopted and institutions that may be constructed in the Australian context.

The large emphasis Mill puts on Conformity, is not a strong enough argument. It is simply displaying the problem he sees without any clear fixes. By Mill saying that people should be allowed to act on their own based off of the idea that originality is a valuable element of human affairs because it would lead to new practices and set examples of more enlightened conduct is not an argument that is going to persuade someone with different beliefs. Just basing your thinking off this, won’t change the mind of someone who is content with the way life is already.

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, English philosopher and social reformer, was one of the most influential figures of the nineteenth century. His writing includes a wide range of topics in ethics,logic,religion, economics, current affairs, and social and political philosophy. His most significant writings include Principles of Political Economy, Utilitarianism, and The Subjection of Women.With strong influences from his father and his father's mentor, Jeremy Bentham, he adopted their ideologies and became a leading figure in utilitarianism. As a result of Mill’s large philosophical and literary output we are able to apply his ideas and theories into everyday issues and topics.

The aim of this paper is to clearly depict how John Stuart Mill’s belief to do good for all is more appropriate for our society than Immanuel Kant’s principle that it is better to do what's morally just. I will explain why Mill’s theory served as a better guide to moral behavior and differentiate between the rights and responsibilities of human beings to themselves and society.

John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant in my opinion was two great scholars with two great but very different views, on morality. John Stuart strong beliefs was named Utilitarianism. Simply stated Utilitarianism is the belief in doing what is good specifically for the greater good of the masses/everyone not just someone.

The role of pleasure in morality has been examined thoroughly throughout the beginning of philosophy and continues to be a questionable issue. With these in-depth examinations, some similar outlooks as well as differing views have been recorded. Many philosophers have dissected this important topic, however I intend to concentrate of the famous works of Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill. After meticulously analyzing each of the above philosophers’ texts, I personally prefer the position of utilitarian and Benthamite, John Stuart Mill. After comparing and contrasting the positions and reasonings of these philosophers, I will demonstrate my own reasons why I have chosen John Stuart Mill as the most established in his theory of the role of pleasure in morality.

John Stuart Mill discusses the conception of liberty in many ways. I’d like to focus of his ideas of the harm principle and a touch a little on his thoughts about the freedom of action. The harm principle and freedom on action are just two subtopics of Mill’s extensive thoughts about the conception on liberty. Not only do I plan to discuss and explain each of these parts on the conception of liberty, but I also plan to discuss my thoughts and feelings. I have a few disagreements with Mill on the harm principle; they will be stated and explained. My thoughts and feelings on Mill vary but I’d like to share my negative opinion towards the principle and hope to put it in a different perspective.

“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.