The Work Of Mill : The Foundation Of Liberalism And Modern Day Politics

Nevertheless, beneath the social contract, the thing people were truly afraid of was the “majority”. People prefer putting themselves into the majority, rather than standing alone. This behavior is called conformity. In "The

But conforming to what the majority is doing because it is deemed as cool is a whole different story. Instead of conforming to keep society running smoothly, we sometimes conform due to fear that we will receive hateful backlash for breaking against the norm or in fear that we will be wrong. Solomon Asch explains the latter reason when he conducted an experiment to investigate the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could affect a person to conform. In his experiment, there was only one true participant and 4 other fake participants that will help prove his point correct. Cards were shown to everyone where there were lines of different length illustrated. They all had to choose which line was the longest. The first four people at the table were the fake participants and purposely chose the wrong answers. The last person was the true participant in the experiment and in all of the experiments they conducted, the last person always went with what the rest of the group thought even though he knew that the answer was incorrect. After the experiment was conducted, the real participants were interviewed and asked why they went along with everyone else even though they knew the answer was incorrect. “Most of them said that they did not really

* I’m not sure if your interpretations of majority rule match mine. Majority rule was instituted to protect the majority from getting too powerful. The majority could not act unwillingly against the minority’s

In the United States of America, individuals have always taken it upon themselves to write the wrong that they witness in society. This can be portrayed in both Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, and Henry David Thoreau Civil Disobedience. Throughout history, as the times have changed so has individuals perception on government. Both authors existed at a different time in history, but they both convey a similar message that citizens should disobey government- but their idea of government is completely different.\

Civil disobedience is defined as the “refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in government policy or legislation, characterized by nonviolent means”; theories on this topic have been debated for centuries. (American Heritage Dictionary 3rd Edition pg161) Henry David Thoreau was well known for his refusal to participate in the political systems or activities of his era, not only by refusing to pay his poll taxes for six consecutive years, but also by announcing that he did not wish to be regarded as a member of any incorporated society. In Civil Disobedience, Thoreau stresses the need to prioritize one’s conscience over the dictates of laws. A person should not be obligated to devote his or her life to eliminating evils from the world, but is only obligated not to participate in such evils themselves. He argues that the government rarely proves itself useful and this derives from the power from the majority because they are the strongest group, not because they hold the most legitimate views. Justice is the quality of being just, impartial or fair. Thoreau doubted the effectiveness of reform within the government, and argued that voting and petitioning for change served useless. He felt that justice had different standards for each different group. Which raises the question, is justice fair for everyone? When a government is unjust, people should

The argument starts with two main points. The first is how the majority acts as a faction to oppress the minority, and the second is how justice can not be fair “until liberty be lost in the pursuit”

in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail.” Today

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.

During the discussion of the ratification of the Constitution, a major fear on the minds of the Framers was that of tyranny. James Madison describes the two types of tyranny that were feared, that of the majority and that of the elite. Tyranny of the majority is when a majority of a population has a view this not held by all, however, because they are the majority, their voice is listened to and the minority’s voice is suppressed. Tyranny of the elite is the opposite of the majority, and was the fear that the government would use its power to control and abuse the people, rather than help the people.

According to Mill, the ideal conditions for both a society and individual to flourish exist when the prevailing opinion in society favors individuals with non-normative, original ideas. Mill, somewhat gratuitously,

In many historical and present instances, expression of individual opinion and rights are often oppressed. Such an idea is present in Sophocles’s Antigone, excerpts from Henry Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” essay, and the article “PRO/CON: Is Snowden a hero or traitor” by Mark Weisbrot and James Carafano. Each piece of literature provides a perspective on the topic of oppression and its effect on the human society. The oppression of others’ rights, opinions, and freedom often negatively affects society and damages the mentality of its people.

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.

The philosophy of John Stuart Mill has influenced mankind and classical liberalism throughout history. John Stuart Mill, a

The book starts off by discussing the fact that liberty is important to protect individuals against political tyranny of overzealous rulers. Citizens of the society were beginning to realize that in order for them to achieve liberty the government would have to step in, and act as a instrument of the peoples will. Whatever the majority chose in a society was what the government would have to go with as its main purpose should be to serve the best interest of the citizens. Mill recognizes this new so-called victory of the people is nothing they assume its like to be, its in fact just a way for a new type of tyranny; the type of prevailing opinion. This type of tyranny is far worse and more evil as it silences the voice of the minority, and lets the majority rule. The minority of a society should be able to state their opinion even if it may be wrong, right, or even part of the truth. According to Mill, everyone’s contribution is extremely important in a community. Mill states that society should not impose its values on anyone because even though the majority choses one path, it doesn’t mean that they are right because human opinion is error-prone and thus we should listen and not be so judgmental on the opinions of those who don’t agree with majority. The majority group if people who choose one path may not always realize that they might be making a error in judgment which those in minority can be able to see. Mills

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.