Analysing on Liberty by John Stuart Mill Essay

Humanitys attempts to study the state of society have stretched hind end throughout the ages. From forefathers such as Socrates or Aristophanes to the great enlightenment philosophers of Locke or Voltaire, all have grappled with the fountainheads of how public best functions as a collective. John Stuart Mill, hailed as a paradigmatic liberal political philosopher, continues this tradition of thought in his work On freedom published in 1859. Mills major argument made is that the individual is sovereign in their carry outs insofar as they do non cite upon the rights of others.His justifications centre strongly on the principles of usefulism, providing a model he believes to offer the great happiness to the greatest weigh. Through specific analysis it dejection be seen that he optimizes societal benefit by placing aftermath on individuality but conversely justifying exactly when governance and restraint need to be exercised. Overall, his conclusions be an attempt to unify two competing social factors, individual self-direction against circumstances in which power can be exerted over a nonher, articulated in what has become known as the harm principle.The first-class honours degree and most fundamental principle Mill holds is out roued in the introductory chapter and describes the necessity for man to be free over Over himself, over his own body and mind (Mill, 1859 31). Individual independence is non only considered personally fulfilling, but also beneficial to the progress of civilisation for Mankind are greater gainers by suffering separately other to live as seems fair to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest (Mill, 1859 33).It is important to note that Mill does not endorse independence of expression for its own sake but for the greater purpose of stimulating discourse His argument for liberty of expression is in fact an argument for liberty of discussion (Larvor, 2006 3) To support his claims, he highlight s three main(a) freedoms in order of importance. Firstly, the freedom of thought itself should be unrestricted second we should have the freedom to be tastes to suit our own character (Mill, 1859 33) regardless of whether social convention 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 complete so long as it does not without justifi satisfactory ca part, do harm to others (Mill 1859 72). He also notes that it is obvious 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 violated, outweighing the benefits of the first individuals liberty. His conclusion is on that pointfore that in things which do not primarily c erstrn others, individuality should assert itself (1859 73). This reasoning is fundamentally based in utilitarianism, which Mill is a eminent proponent of, as the key deciding factor needs to be maximum joyousness for minimum harm. The harm principle is the essential restraining factor on an individuals calculus of liberty however Mill is not so blindingly liberal that he does not acknowledge the importance of brass in maintaining social stability. In fact, Mills definition of liberty itself is intimately linked with dogmatic 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 pervasive governing bodies ought be. Mill contends, the sole end for which mankind are warranted, apiece or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protectionHis own good, every physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. It is here where Mill refers to the idea of tyranny of the profound age, that pressure from the masses can be as pervasive as an oppressive state for there is more intangible a difficulty in arguing against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling. (Mill, 1859 7) besides here it is apparent 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 destabilise hismain point being that the use of outside force can be used defensively against anothers individuality if it would endeavor 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 melt 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 inactivity 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 modern debate, particularly on a legal level. Many states, Australia amongst them, require no duty or obligation 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 depict an argument that supports social wellbeing, Mill has contradicted his own seemingly inviolate idea of individual sovereign ty. Another electronic jamming in his discourse is that There seems then no obstacle in principle within utilitarian morality to a policy which indeed prevents harm but at the expense of the most prefatory 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 among 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 bed sheet 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 theory is grounded solidly in utilitari an ideals, whereby social progression and greatest satisfaction is the primary goal. While a number of contentious arise throughout Mills discussions, overall the arguments are crystalline 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. deferred payment ListEdelman, James. 2011. Change of position A defence of unjust disenrichment (presented at the launch of the Restatement (Third) Restitution and partial 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 DefenceGray, John. 1979. John Stuart Mill Traditional and Revisionist Interpretations. literary productions 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 parole in John Stuart Mill On Liberty Discussions (British Humanist Association). Mill, John Stuart. (1859). On Liberty. London Cambridge University Press.