The Philosophical Conflict between Freedom and Authority

Flags burning under raining bombs, gunshots echoing through a field of raining terror, while hiding underground for the day where humanity can roam free again; situations as so aren’t exactly what people imagine when thinking about one’s future. Every death was honored by those who lived; lives lost during wars of any kind are unlike lives lost in our country today, not for the value of those once living are greater than another, but from how much those lives mean to this day. Establishment and preservation of freedom wasn’t easy and will never be easy; many people served until their last breath, for the freedoms of our lives today. That is why we must continue to grasp for freedom, and to establish and preserve our freedom most effectively we must have the heart to be free, and have united dedication to freedom itself.

Over the length of this course, we have discussed several aspects of politics. We have studied citizenship and obligations to society as a citizen, justice and what it means to us as individuals, and how to go about enacting change within a community and around the world. Some of the most important topics from this class included the characteristics, duties, and obligations of rulers of government. In addition to the concept of rulers, we also studied the notion of authority and the moral and metaphysical implications of authority to individuals ' autonomy. Within each concept of study, we read works from many authors with conflicting ontologies, constructed from their differing views on human nature.

Many believe that order should be applied by the government; though it should be allowed to a certain limit and should not interfere in a citizen’s personal life. However others believe that full freedom should be given to individuals and that nothing should be enforced as it brings along many differences between citizens. This

Considering economic policies and the balance of power between national and local government, how did Whigs and Democrats differ in their definitions of American freedom and its relationship to government authority?

John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all dealt with the issue of political freedom within a society. John Locke's “The Second Treatise of Government”, Mill's “On Liberty”, and Rousseau’s “Discourse On The Origins of Inequality” are influential and compelling literary works which while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinker’s ideal state present divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. The three have somewhat different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or

From the earlier times in our lives till now, we humans have been struggling hard to be free and independent of the things that limit our right to be free. And even though some people say that having security in life can regulate our lives and messy societies, I believe that too much security or limitation causes more dilemmas. Also, by being independent and free, one can learn new things rather than just by sticking to some widely held beliefs. We can see many examples related to this assumption everywhere in our lives, movies, books, and history.

This essay will argue how the society dictates the state, as it will be organized into six sections. The first part of the essay provides the opposing argument that the social compact is dictated by the state. In the next section, I will demonstrate why the opposing points are weak and provide my main arguments. The arguments will comprise of how individuals in a society create laws and we collectively can change and implement new laws. The four ways individuals can

An individual with “Free Will” is capable of making vital decisions and choices in life with own free consent. The individual chooses these decisions without any outside influence from a set of “alternative possibilities.” The idea of “free will” imposes a certain kind of power on an individual to make decisions of which he or she is morally responsible. This implies that “free will” would include a range of aspects such as originality, moral value, and self-governance. However, in life, individuals may not be free in making decisions. The aspect of freedom could entail remarkably a high status action and achievement in an individual’s life whose attainment could be close to impossibility. Often, people make

The desire for autonomy and the freedom to make one’s own choices decisions without the interference of others can give someone a sense of self-worth and motivate them to reach their highest potential. However, too much freedom to individuals could result in a chaotic, tumultuous society, as their would cease to be rules that restrict the people and bring about order. When people act in their own self-interest, this will endanger the safety of people in society as every individual will be responsible for their own protection, but if the goal of providing security in society is placed above all individualistic pursuits, this will create a restrictive society that infringes on people’s freedom to live their life the way they choose. In Stephen

Every human being deserves to have Individual rights and they are a very important part of the justice system. Without individual rights things would be chaotic therefore, public order is brought into the system so that everyone’s individual rights are in place for each individual to use as a backbone for guidelines of what is acceptable and what is not. Although, there are disadvantages and advantages of both individual rights and public order they are still very essential to maintain order.

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.

The concept of freedom has long been a popular tenet for philosophers to explore. From ancient Greek origins to the present day, many individuals have discussed the importance of freedom and the role it plays within society in an effort to define its relationship to the human condition. Two philosophers that have studied freedom in depth are John Locke and Immanuel Kant. Both philosophers viewed freedom as playing a major role in society; however, they conceptualized it in different ways, particularly in relation to its role with the nation. Perhaps the most notable aspect of these stances is Kant’s definition of the relationship between freedom, reason, and morality.

     Freedom of individuality is seen as the essential form of freedom according to Mill. The freedom of thought and speech, discussed in Chapter 2, do play a pivotal role in ensuring freedom, however, they are viewed more as a means to an end rather than being something that should be pursued for its own good. The freedom of individuality is essential for human progress and development and “it is only the cultivation of individuality which produces, or can produce, well-developed human beings” (Mill 70). It is this stressed importance on the importance of

Just as every plants and animal as evolved and changed throughout the course of its existence so has the definition of freedom while its’ meaning has stayed constant. Freedom has a perpetual meaning, however, humans have tried to change the definition based upon moral, ethical, social, and legal ideals that have through history been debated upon and never satisfied all. Freedoms’ perpetual meaning is that everyone, no matter race or gender, has the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. As time progresses and new ideas flourish the definition of freedom either flourishes along with society or takes a drastic spiral downward usually with the opinions of humanity. In this essay we will be

There are essentially two polar views in relation to the liberty of people within society. Anarchist fundamentally believe that the state should have no power to impose limits on its people, whilst those in favour of total government control, believe that liberty should be disregarded and the state allowed to implement any law or policy that it so chooses. In his work ‘On Liberty (1859), John Stuart Mill outlines an alternative, which is a mix of these polar policies. He produced a formula which allows freedom of the individual with some limitations, which is now known as the ‘Liberty Principle. He disregards tyranny as a suitable form of government, but reasons that total freedom would allow abuses to occur. However, Mill’s work was