John Stuart Mill's Defence Of Liberty

A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it, does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism” (Basler,

This ideology is counter to that of liberalism as it infringes on the natural rights of its citizens, and it is undemocratic as this society would not have the consent of the governed as a whole. Furthermore, counters the rule of law because the author believes the authority should never be challenged, and therefore the author suggests that the authority is exempt of these laws. A thinker such as Hobbes would agree with the author of this source as he believed that without a strong government it would lead to nation wide chaos, such as that that the author describes through the use of the phrase, “A society that allows authority to be challenged will never succeed.”. Additionally, Locke would disagree with all parts of this source, as he believed that individuals know for themselves what is best and therefore should have the freedom to make their own decisions. For the second sentence of this source Locke and Rousseau would both disagree as they believed that consent of the governed was vital to society, which directly contradicts the authors issues with the challenging

Whether it is at the dinner table or in my family’s group text message, the conversation about my brother’s custody battle with my mother’s side of the family seems to remain a bitter topic, especially when discussing my role in it. When my father physically harmed my brother to the extent to which he had to go to the emergency room, the custody trial over my brother and me began. After several sources provided the judge with accusations against my father, I was the final source that needed to assert or deny my father’s abuse; with heavy consideration, I decided to lie to the judge by denying my father’s abuse. Under the principle of utilitarianism, philosophers would infer that lying is permissible if the consequences of doing so are good.

in which he tackles problems concerning life, liberty, property, and, ultimately, the power that the people have over the government. However, to what extent can Locke?s beliefs be accepted? Can they justify peaceful protest? This essay will connect the beliefs expressed in

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two theorists known for their views regarding the social contract. Both theorists study the origins of government and the level of authority given to the state over individuals, thoroughly constructing their arguments through the social contract. A philosophical approach was used in both Hobbes’s and Locke’s arguments, however supporting different authorities. Thomas Hobbes advocates for absolutism whilst John Locke advocates for a constitutional government. Through the close examination of the state of nature, the relationships between subject and sovereign and views regarding the social contract, one can observe a more sensible basis for constructing a successful political society.

Locke’s definition of liberty depends on whether the person is in the state of nature, in which people are “without subordination or subjection” (Locke 101) or if they have formed into a commonwealth, or whenever “any number of men are so united into one society, as to quit every one his executive power of the law of nature, and resign it to the public” (Locke 137-38). In the Lockean state of nature, men have a “freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons” (Locke 101). This freedom is still limited by what Locke refers to as the law of nature, or that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions” (Locke 102). He also defines the liberty of the state of nature as “not to be under any will or legislative authority of man” (Locke 109). In his form of commonwealth, there is more limited freedom, in which liberty is to “be under no legislative power, but that established, by the consent of the commonwealth” (Locke 110).

Two of the most well respected philosophers of their time Kant and Mill share their views as different as they might be. Kant’s basis is categorical imperative. In the writings of Grounding for the Metaphysics of morals it is described as “act only according to the maxim whereby you can… will that it should become a universal law” (Kant, 30). The other main point that Kant makes in his agreement is that we should not treat people as means but as ends themselves (36). Mill has a different stance, he states his principle in Utilitarianism “Greatest Happiness Principle”.

Two Concepts of Liberty Summary of the essay: In this essay, the famous political theorist Isaiah Berlin tries to differentiate between the notions of positive liberty and negative liberty. Berlin briefly discusses the meaning of the word ‘freedom’. He says that a person is said to free when no man or body of men interferes with his activity. He makes reference to many philosophers in the essay, but there is more emphasis on the thoughts of J. S. Mill and Rousseau, the former being a firm advocate of negative liberty while the latter believes strongly in the ideals of positive liberty.

It was not until Mill’s late teens that he began to study Jeremy Bentham and his utilitarianism theory. “Reading Bentham satisfied Mill’s cravings for scientific precision and gave him a new way of looking at social intercourse” (Buchholz 97). Mill became so intrigued with Bentham that he decided to preach the Benthamite gospel in the Westminster Review, a publication started by his father and Jeremy Bentham. Mill’s views soon changed as he grew older. It is said that Mill had a mid-life crisis at the age of twenty because he took the Bentamite precision too far and actually forgot the ultimate goal of Utilitarianism in the first place, happiness.

Introduction: John Stuart Mill essay on Consideration On representative Government, is an argument for representative government. The ideal form of government in Mill's opinion. One of the more notable ideas Mill is that the business of government representatives is not to make legislation. Instead Mill suggests that representative bodies such as parliaments and senates are best suited to be places of public debate on the various opinions held by the population and to act as watchdogs of the professionals who create and administer laws and policy.

Mill views liberty as a civil and social concept. The purpose of On Liberty is to investigate "the nature and limits of power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual." (Mill,1). Following a summary of the evolution of liberty in recent history, Mill discusses social tyranny, claiming that society 's "means of tyrannising are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries." (Mill,8), meaning that society can tyrannize the people in ways other than political.

John Locke and John Stuart Mill’s dilemma in swimming to the islands of Fatherland and Bourgeouseville demand them to consider several key elements of each civilization. Each societies attitudes towards A fundamental element for Locke and Mill to consider in their decision, is the core purpose of government on each island, and the impact these different goals have on each civilization. The role of government in Fatherland, which is a Fascist regime, reflects the Fascist emphasis on government involvement in the lives of its people. In Benito Mussolini’s “The Doctrine of Fascism”, he describes the Fascist state as “the highest and most powerful form of personality, is a force, but a spiritual force, which takes over all the forms of moral and intellectual life of a man.” (pg.

Without the government, there is nobody to protect the rights of the individual. The Government is good for the economy” (Maguire 1). These reasons alone would make it very scary to live in France. Stuart Mill on the other had was for the people. He was all about giving people right, until they gave the government a reason to take their freedom away.

In the United States, people always talk about freedom and equality. Especially they want elections could be more democratic. In American Democracy in Peril, Hudson’s main argument regarding chapter five “Election Without the People’s Voice,” is if elections want to be democratic, they must meet three essential criteria, which are to provide equal representation of all citizens, to be mechanisms for deliberation about public policy issues, and to control what government does. Unfortunately, those points that Hudson mentions are what American elections do not have. American elections do not provide equal representation to everyone in the country.

The structural factors that prevent the realization of democracy according to Mills is the “widespread alienation, political indifference, and economic and political concentration of power” (p. 19). As Mills had believed that there were six steps to avoid the troubles of our society today. The public should be well informed on issues that involve them, and the laws that are created. There is ‘political indifference’ in our society mainly due to the idea that one individual cannot make a change. The most active voters of our society today are usually made up of an older generation who understands that through their knowledge and votes, they can influence change.