Analysing on Liberty by John Stuart Mill Essay

Humanitys strains to study the state of bon ton have stretched back throughout the ages. From forefathers such as Socrates or Aristophanes to the slap-up enlightenment philosophers of Locke or Voltaire, all have grappled with the questions of how humanity best functions as a collective. bottom Stuart hang around, hailed as a paradigmatic liberal goernmental philosopher, continues this tradition of intelligent opinion in his work On freedom produce in 1859. nerds major argument made is that the personist is sovereign in their exertions insofar as they do non prosecute upon the rights of otherwises.His justifications centre strongly on the recipes of utilitarianism, providing a model he believes to crack the greatest happiness to the greatest consider. Through specific analysis it privy be seen that he optimizes societal benefit by placing import on indistinguishability besides conversely justifying ex subprogramly when governance and restraint involve to be exer cised. everywhereall, his finiss are an attempt to unify two competing amicable factors, man-to-man liberty against circumstances in which power can be exerted over a nonher(prenominal), articulated in what has become known as the misemploy principle.The first and nigh fundamental principle lollygag holds is outlined in the introductory chapter and describes the necessity for man to be free over Over himself, over his own body and mind ( drudgery, 1859 31). Individual liberty is not only considered personally fulfilling, further also beneficial to the progress of culture for Mankind are great gainers by suffering each other to eff as seems good 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 freedom of expression for its own sake but for the greater purpose of stimulating treatment His argument for liberty of expression is in fact an argument for liberty of discussion (Larvor, 200 6 3) To support his claims, he highlights ternion uncomplicated freedoms in order of importance. Firstly, the freedom of thought itself should be open-ended second we should have the freedom to pursue tastes to suit our own ca utilise (Mill, 1859 33) regardless of whether social convention deemsotherwise lastly, the freedom for citizens to unite, providing such action will not harm others. This thinking of the harm principle is vainglorious 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 excusable cause, 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 peerless 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 fellowships own freedom is violated, outweighin g the benefits of the first individuals liberty. His conclusion is therefore that in things which do not primarily concern 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 necessarily to be maximum pleasure for minimum harm. The harm principle is the primary restraining factor on an individuals calculus of liberty but Mill is not so blindingly liberal that he does not do it the importance of government in obligeing social stability. In fact, Mills definition 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 butt of question in deciding how pervasive governing bodies ought be. Mill contends, the mend end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protectionHis own good, any physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. It is here where Mill refers to the idea of tyranny of the majority, that pressure from the masses can be as pervasive as an oppressive state for there is much intangible a difficulty in arguing against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling. (Mill, 1859 7) Yet here it is apparent that Mill defends the use of ordinary 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 oftentimes 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, so far Mills contradictions destabilise hismain point being that the use of outside force can be used defensively against anothers individuality if it woul d 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 association in which the race itself whitethorn be considered as in its minority (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 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 provide an argument that supports social wellbeing, Mill has contra dicted his own seemingly inviolate idea of individual sovereignty. Another hole in his discourse is that There seems then no obstacle in principle deep down utilitarian morality to a policy which indeed prevents harm but at the expense of the most basic interests of a minority (Gray, 2003 7). erstwhile 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 empowerment 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 commonplace pressure control it. Beyond these factors, individuality is considered a sacred thing, which should be embraced for the good of p rogress. His entire theory is grounded solidly in utilitarian ideals, whereby social progression and greatest satisfaction is the primary goal. While a number of contentious arise throughout Mills discussions, overall the arguments are discursive 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 careenEdelman, James. 2011. Change of position A defence of unjust disenrichment (presented at the dive 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. capital of the United Kingdom Routeledge Gray, John. 1983. Mill On Liberty. A DefenceGray, John. 1979. John Stuart Mill handed-down and Revisionist Interpretations. Literature of Liberty 2(2) 7-37Hayek, F.A. 2011. The Constitution of Liberty. New York The University of Chica go Press. Larvor, Brendan. 2006. Mill on Liberty of Thought and Discussion in John Stuart Mill On Liberty Discussions (British Humanist Association). Mill, John Stuart. (1859). On Liberty. London Cambridge University Press.