Mill On Liberty

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.

Mankind has been fighting for Liberty and Freedom for as long as we can remember. Liberty and freedom has been a topic which has been debated for many decades. What does it mean to be free , and how far can we go to strive for freedom. These important questions have been answered and studied by two of the greatest English philosophers, John Locke and John Stuart Mill. Locke and Mill men will attempt to uncover the mysteries of Liberty and Freedom and unveil the importance of being free. This essay will look at John Locke’s principle works” Second Treatise of government” and John Stuart Mills. “ On Liberty and Other Essays”. This essay will attempt to compare and contrast Lockes ideology on Liberty and Freedom to that of Mill.

'Mill's account of personal liberty ensures the development of the individual and society' Assess the validity in this claim.

Prior to the Revolution Boston had a lot of bad things happen to it.Many colonist were very upset and mad.Many of the people was protesting.

Utilitarianism defined, is the contention that a man should judge everything based on the ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. In other words Utilitarianism states that good is what brings the most happiness to the most people. John Stuart Mill based his utilitarian principle on the decisions that we make. He says the decisions should always benefit the most people as much as possible no matter what the consequences might be. Mill says that we should weigh the outcomes and make our decisions based on the outcome that benefits the majority of the people. This leads to him stating that pleasure is the only desirable consequence of our decision or actions. Mill believes that human

First, negative liberty shifted to positive liberty, because free markets failed to regulate competition. Through negative liberty one believes that freedom comes when there is

America is commonly called the “Land of the Free”, but the abundance of liberties, and liberties for all, has not always been the case. The Puritans were some of the first to settle in the New World, but they were self-interested and did not come with the purpose of creating a free state for all. As time progressed, so did their believes, and by the time Tocqueville arrived from France, liberty was an important aspect of American life. So important that people would fight and die for it. Tocqueville, while impressed at the amount liberty and freedoms that citizens had, believed that America had a long way to go before it could call itself a truly free country. Fast forward over a hundred years later, and John Rawls lived in a time were the

power to alter the exchange as it sees fit. If this function of the state is

Lucius Beebe critically analyzes Edwin Arlington Robinson’s, The Mill best. Beebe’s analysis is from an objective point of view. He points out to the reader that what seems so obvious may not be. She notes “The Mill is just a sad little tale of double suicide brought on by the encroachment of the modern world and by personal loss.” Thus meaning The Mill carries a deeper underlying theme. Lucius Beebe expresses that a minor overflow of significant details has been exposed over Edwin Arlington Robinson's "The Mill," much of it concerned with whether the miller's wife did indeed drown herself after the miller had hanged himself. Another, even more provocative question has never been asked: did the

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

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.

John Locke’s views on property and liberty, as outlined in his Second Treatise of Government (1690), have had varying interpretations and treatments by subsequent generations of authors. At one extreme, Locke has been claimed as one of the early originators of Western liberalism, who had sought to lay the foundations for civil government, based on universal consent and the natural rights of individuals. [1] Others have charged that what Locke had really done, whether intentionally or unintentionally, was to provide a justification for the entrenched inequality and privileges of the bourgeoisie, in the emerging capitalist society of seventeenth

John Locke (1632-1704) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) are two important thinkers of liberty in modern political thought. They have revolutionized the idea of human freedom at their time and have influenced many political thinkers afterwards. Although their important book on human freedom, John Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government (1689) and John Mill’s On Liberty (1859), are separated 170 years, some scholars thinks that they are belonging to the same conceptual tradition, English Liberalism. In this essay, I will elaborate John Locke and John Stuart Mill view on human freedom and try to find the difference between their concept of human freedom despite their similar liberal tradition background.

“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.

First and foremost, I am a proponent of Negative Liberty. Not only does this mean that individuals should be free from external impediments to action by other people, but also that a government should primarily remove obstructions to our freedom, which is in contrast to Positive Liberty, for the purpose of preserving individual liberties. The lack of hindrance to human action will limit government activities and create a free, tolerant society. In addition, Negative Liberty supports the individual freedom of choice and movement. With this in mind, I cannot help but emphasize the significance of the degree to which individuals encounter interferences from others. Some may argue that a government should actively create conditions necessary for self-determination and freedom to act in the presence of internal capacities; however, I interpret that as a sense of entitlement that requires a redistribution of wealth and ultimately violates the human right of private property. For this reason, I find Positive Liberty to be an infringement of others’ liberty. Throughout mankind’s history, there have been many types of oppression that illustrate my support for Negative Liberty, such as the exploitative authoritarian regimes, economic hardships, and racial oppression.