The Large Emphasis Mill Puts On Conformity Is Not A Strong Enough Argument

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.

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.

One principal proclaimed by anti-paternalist writer J.S Mill, “is that 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. 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.” In Mill’s proclamation, not one simple principle is being emphasized, but rather a few intricate opinions regarding an individual’s own good. He is asserting that self-protection or the prevention of harm to others is sometimes sufficient and that someone’s own good is never a sufficient authorization for the exercise of domination.

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.

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.

He presumed that people had enough knowledge and discernment to make moral choices that they could live with. The individual and their personal reflection of right or wrong decided their moral standards. Mill also noted that people had a desire to be accepted by society and they have a fear of being disapproved. Mill believed government should intervene only when one individual may hurt another. People have the freedom to hold and express their own opinions, which would deny the government the ability to choose a majority over a minority. In this government their authority would be limited in its ability to intervene unless an individual was harming another.

Because of his views on morality Mill would not agree with Aristotle that the completely ethical person will not be conflicted about his ethical choice. According to Mill a person could do the right thing, and act morally while also having the desire to do the wrong thing. To explain this, he gives the example of a

In this essay I will assess and evaluate Mill’s concept of justice through the principles of utility. I will argue to defend Mill’s attempt to reconcile justice with the utilitarian principles he has explained by first summarizing these concepts and by proving utility.

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.

I will be explaining John Stuart Mill’s view on ethics. This includes explaining the “Greatest Happiness Principle”, happiness, unhappiness, quality of pleasure, lying, and the relevance of time with his view. I will then explain how I agree with the principle of Rule Utilitarianism. I will also consider the objection of conflicting rules in Rule Utilitarianism as well as that of negative responsibility, giving my response to each.

Mill uses the Harm Principle to identify his argument for freedom of speech. The Harm Principle explains that the government are only justified in interfering with individuals who express their views if only their views cause harm to others. If a person’s actions only affect himself, then society, which includes the government should not be able to stop a person from doing what he wants. Three ideas helped shape the harm principle. The first idea, Mill states that the harm principle is composed of the liberty of expressing and publishing opinions as being important as the liberty of thought, which

There are three main objections against utilitarian view in which Mill responds to. The first being that, the utilitarian standard of right and wrong is “too high for humanity” (Utilitarianism, 418). In the reading it states that, “it is exacting too much to require that people shall always act from the inducement of promoting the general interests of society” (Utilitarianism, 418). This is implying that that it would too high of a person to have the ability to always make a decision based on how it will affect people in a society. According to Mill, this objection is misunderstanding the meaning of utilitarianism. The meaning of Utilitarian view does not say that people

Mill dedicates his third chapter to the consequences for rejecting utility. Mill divides these consequences into external sanctions, which take the form of peer pressure or religious motivation, and internal sanctions, which take the form of discomfort of the conscience. Mill asserts that any person can be raised to cultivate certain internal sanctions (e.g., utilitarianism). However, Mill distinguishes utilitarianism

Also noted by Mill, dating back to centuries ago the minority was heavily protected by the authority. the stronger. “To prevent the weaker members of the community from being preyed upon by innumerable vultures, it was needful that there should be an animal of prey stronger that the rest” ( Mill, 2) With that said, Mill’s essay speaks strongly on “demanding liberty of conscience in the most comprehensive sense, liberty of thought and feeling, absolute freedom on opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical, or speculative, scientific, moral or theological” (Mill 71) believing that we have the freedom to direct our own destiny.