The Political Philosophies Of John Mill

When it comes to glue usage, kindergarten teachers the world over agree that a dab will do. Nevertheless, despite centuries of debate, there is no such consensus about the ideal amount of individualism a society should desire. In his 1863 work On Liberty, philosopher John Stuart Mill seeks to address this issue, and explain the generally salutary progress of human thought and behavior. He concludes that most reasonable minds are produced through discussion and debate with the varied viewpoints of others, advocating for intellectual diversity. Mill also argues that, on a societal level, civilized outcomes are accomplished best through a mix of conformity to customs and individual agency to alter social norms. Mill’s arguments establish that individuals, or even isolated groups, are less effective than well-connected, heterogeneous groups; the later works of Putnam and Kwon et al. bolster and extend this truth with specific, contemporary evidence.

Within Mill's 'On Liberty' it is clear that he has a high regard for the issues surrounding freedom and it's limits. Mill is an advocate of negative freedom, as a liberal he believes that there should be no restraints on an individual's freedom unless it is hindering the freedom or health of another person. One of the main reasons as to why Mill values liberty is because it contributes to personal development. Thus Mill argues that in order for individuals to develop they should be able to perform 'experiments' in living', which allow individuals to go through a system of trial and error until they find their own

Liberalism: where “people understand their own business, and their own interests better, and care for them more, than the government does or can be expected to do”, as defined by John Mill. Many individuals considered this ideology as the solution to their political, economic, and possibly their social needs; where a renewed acknowledgement of human worth and rationality materialized. Citizens were given the opportunity to delve and pursue their own desires of wealth without any government involvement. This contemporary kind of thinking ultimately increased the wealth of both the individual and the state immensely. Life was rather pleasant…for the privileged. The wealth and prosperity of classical liberalism only applied to people who had

In his work On Liberty, Mill placed much emphasis on individual liberty and its vital role in political society. To Mill, this phrase may be defined as the liberty of the individual to be the final judge over his actions; to decide what is right and wrong and to act upon that standard. On a secondary level, it also implies one's freedom to pursue one's own individuality. Mill believed in a society in which each individual leads his own distinctive life according to his own unique talents; unfettered by regulations upon thought, opinion, actions etc.

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 wrote on his moral theory of Utilitarianism, which many have refuted by explaining that it failed to respect the dignity and worth of human beings. Mills theory of utility bases an actions morality on its ability to create the maximum amount of happiness. Happiness as described by Mill, is the maximization of pleasure over grief. Some critics have even said that Mill’s theory degraded humans to swine as it belittled morals to come from pleasures of the body that even animals had. Mill defended his theory by stating that human happiness is much more complex than that of swine. I do not believe that Mill’s defense was particularly convincing, and many facets of his theory continue to degrade the dignity, values, and worth of humans.

I noticed that he and Beccaria had several attributes in common. Mill had two tenants, liberalism and utilitarianism, which were ethical theories developed by Jeremy Bentham and his father James Mill. Utilitarianism is the contention that a person should judge everything based on the ability to promote individual happiness. Mill based his utilitarian principle on the decisions we make. He states that, “the decisions should always benefit the most people as much as possible no matter what the consequences might be.”

Mill’s rebuttal to the third objection is based off that Christians do not read the Bible every time they have to make decisions. Furthermore, Mill says that ever since humans have existed we have learned from our ancestors what certain effects result from certain actions and that through time we have the consciousness to tell apart from what’s right and wrong. It is true that as humans we want to perform actions that promote pleasure and the absence of pain, but most of our human experiences follow common-sense morality. Mill provides a distinction in utilitarianism where he gives a fundamental principle of morality and a subordinate principle through what he calls the criterion of rights and the decision procedure: “Whatever we adopt as

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.

Furthermore, Despite Walter Glannon’s second argument against genetic enhancement for personal gain, I contend that the philosophy of John Stuart Mill and Utilitarianism can be used to show that society should will that genetic enhancement be morally acceptable if the adverse cognitive or emotional effects are outweighed by the benefits. Glannon argues that gene enhancement is morally objectionable because “there would be the unacceptable social cost of some people suffering from adverse cognitive or emotional effects of the enhancement.” Under Utilitarianism, society would likely deem that genetic enhancement is acceptable even though there is a risk of adverse cognitive or emotional effects. This is because the consequences of the

In Chapter 3, Mills writes about individuality as one of the elements of Well-Being. In this Chapter, he writes about originality. It is a valuable element in human affairs. Originality is always needed for people to discover new truths and point out what use to be truths is no longer a truth. This overall gives a better taste and sense in human life. Mill then writes about genius. Genius can only be freely in an atmosphere of freedom. Genius people are more individual than any other people. At the end of the Chapter, Mill writes about customs. He believes that most of the world has no history, because of the despotism of custom is complete. Countries in the Eastern World would fit into this category. In Chapter 4, Mill writes about the limits

We believe that John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty” is inconsistent in his view of the Liberty Limiting Principle. To show his inconsistency, we will outline and explain several examples drawn from the text itself. Examples that will be presented include the Utility principle and the principle of Legal Moralism in regards to organized religion.

In the book Mill’s Progressive Principles by David Brink, there’s a section of legal moralism, section 58. In which it talks about how Mill rejects legal moralism and a small portion of his debate with Lord Devlin.

John Stuart Mill was a classical liberal thinker and believed, through the influence of his father, that man deserved to live a life that promoted the greatest amount of happiness with limited government intervention. Mill grew up with the belief that there was no God and therefore believed that man is born inherently good; government should be limited to allow individuals to make their own decisions from their inherently good instincts; economic freedom provided individuals with the protection of rights and promoted the ideology that Mill stood for most, Utilitarianism which highly influenced classical liberalism.

The primary components of this reasoning are one's activities and their subsequent utility. A man is viewed as good when their activities have a tendency to advance utility of the overall population as per the Greatest Happiness Principle. Nonetheless, only an activity expanding utility does not as a matter of course infer an ethical activity. All together for the activity to be moral it must be the ideal decision in expanding utility and minimizing torment. Since it is hard to decide the prevalent of two inconceivably diverse results, Mill furnishes us with a framework to figure out which decision would have the higher quality. This framework has the best possible judges of the activities figure out which they incline toward. Whichever is