Analysing on Liberty by John Stuart Mill Essay Example for Free

Analysing on Liberty by John Stuart wonk EssayHumanitys attempts to show the state of society have stretched back passim the ages. From forefathers such as Socrates or Aristophanes to the great sense philosophers of Locke or Voltaire, all have grappled with the questions of how pityingity best functions as a collective. John Stuart wonk, hailed as a paradigmatic liberal political philosopher, continues this tradition of thought in his work On Liberty print in 1859. molars major argument made is that the individual is sovereign in their exploits hitherto as they do not impeach upon the rights of others. His justifications centre strongly on the rationales of utilitarianism, providing a model he believes to offer the greatest happiness to the greatest number. Through specific analysis it can be seen that he optimizes societal benefit by placing import on individualization however conversely justifying exactly when administration and restraint need to be exercised. Ove rall, his lasts are an attempt to unify two competing affectionate cyphers, individual shore leave against circumstances in which power can be exerted over another, articulated in what has become know as the harm dominion.The first and most fundamental principle Mill holds is outlined in the introductory chapter and describes the necessity for man to be free over Over himself, over his own ashes and mind (Mill, 1859 31). Individual liberty is not merely considered personally fulfilling, precisely too beneficial to the make of civilisation for Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest (Mill, 1859 33).It is important to tone that Mill does not endorse freedom of expression for its own sake but for the greater advise of stimulating discourse His argument for liberty of expression is in fact an argument for liberty of word (Larvor, 2006 3) To support his claims, he highl ights three primary freedoms in order of importance. Firstly, the freedom of thought itself should be nonsensitive second we should have the freedom to pursue tastes to suit our own character (Mill, 1859 33) regardless of whether kindly prescript deemsotherwise lastly, the freedom for citizens to unite, providing such action will not harm others. This idea of the harm principle is prominent in On Liberty for each of these freedoms are subject to the overarching rule that liberty is love so long as it does not without justifiable cause, do harm to others (Mill 1859 72). He also notes that it is provable that freedom of thought and of the mind does not directly correlate to freedom of action, for No one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions (Mill 1859 72).He bases this on the logic that if ones free actions impinge upon anothers happiness, then the affected partys own freedom is go against, outweighing the benefits of the first individuals liberty. His conclusion i s t presentfore that in things which do not primarily concern others, individuality should assert itself (1859 73). This reasoning is essentially based in utilitarianism, which Mill is a eminent proponent of, as the key deciding factor needs to be maximum pleasure for minimum harm. The harm principle is the primary restraining factor on an individuals calculus of liberty however Mill is not so blindingly liberal that he does not acknowledge the importance of government in maintaining social stability. In fact, Mills interpretation of liberty itself is intimately linked with authoritative intervention for he takes liberty to be the absence of human interference with the individuals actions (Crocker, 1980 1). Again, utility becomes the object of question in deciding how distributive governing bodies ought be. Mill contends, the restore end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protect ionHis own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. It is here where Mill refers to the idea of tyranny of the legal age, that drag from the masses can be as pervasive as an oppressive state for there is more intangible a difficulty in competition against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling. (Mill, 1859 7) Yet here it is obvious that Mill defends the use of public pressure to control offensive opinion. Where then is the line drawn regarding what is unique, individual and valuable thought, and what is deemed inappropriate? While Mills consistent self-criticism often enriches his argument, there are contradictory moments wherein his expressions are not only ambiguous, but contradictory (Parker, 1865 5).The idea of utility is once again at play, however Mills contradictions change hismain point being that the use of outside force can be used defensively against anothers individuality if it would cause anothers liberty harm. As well as discussing and arguing Mill offers a number of disclaimers in his argument including the inapplicability of children or those who require the care of others and also backward states of society in which the race itself may be considered as in its nonage (Mill, 1859 14).He also notes that a person A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction such as failing to help save a person when they are directly able to but choose against it. This idea has been argued against extensively in red-brick debate, particularly on a legal level. Many states, Australia amongst them, require no duty or arrangement to act in such a way, the rationale being the protection of the autonomy (Edelman, 2011 2).Liberty is irrevocably violated if one has no choice in a matter, even if that matter may be for social good. In an attempt to promote utilitarianism and provide an argument that supports social wellbeing, Mill has contradicted his own seemingly impregnable idea of individual soverei gnty. Another hole in his discourse is that There seems then no barrier in principle within utilitarian morality to a policy which indeed prevents harm but at the expense of the most basic interests of a minority (Gray, 2003 7).Once more the tyranny of the majority is at question and Mills regard for individuality is destabilized by the conflicting interest of utilitarianism. It is apparent that Mills account is not watertight and this is acknowledged with the criticism On Liberty has received. In essence Mill concerns himself with the struggle between authority and liberty, (Mill, 1859 3) as the essential factors to be balanced in order to maintain stable society. On an individual level, liberty is restrained by the harm principle and on a social plane governance and public pressure control it. Beyond these factors, individuality is considered a sacred thing, which should be embraced for the good of progress. His entire possibleness is grounded solidly in utilitarian ideals, wher eby social progression and greatest satisfaction is the primary goal. While a number of contentious arise throughout Mills discussions, overall the arguments are logical and coherent. On Liberty will continue to be an iconic if not contentious piece in political literature, as will most social theory which has been and will come in the future.Reference ListEdelman, James. 2011. Change of position A defence of below the belt disenrichment (presented at the launch of the Restatement (Third) Restitution and Unjust Enrichment, Boston University Law School 16-17 September 2011) Gray, John and Smith, G.W., eds. 2002. JS Mills On Liberty In Focus. London Routeledge Gray, John. 1983. Mill On Liberty. A exonerationGray, John. 1979. John Stuart Mill Traditional and Revisionist Interpretations. Literature of Liberty 2(2) 7-37Hayek, F.A. 2011. The Constitution of Liberty. New York The University of Chicago Press. Larvor, Brendan. 2006. Mill on Liberty of Thought and Discussion in John Stuart Mill On Liberty Discussions (British human-centered Association). Mill, John Stuart. (1859). On Liberty. London Cambridge University Press.