When a society develops, it will become necessary for a government to compensate for the eventual defect of moral virtue in individuals. However, as this is what is necessary for government to supply, that is the extent the government should be involved according to Paine. The freedom and security of a society is the aim of a government, aims which should not be overstepped. This concept of limiting government to its intended purpose is seen most clearly in the libertarian movement in modern times. Libertarianism is still keenly influenced by Paine’s anti-Federalists sentiments within this paper simply applied to modern issues.
In the second chapter of his essay, On Liberty, Mill passionately defends his doctrine of freedom of expression in the light of three important and concrete points. These are namely human fallibility, tolerance and the search for truth. Most interestingly, Mill sets the tone of his defence of free thought and discussion in line with the first chapter. Liberty of the press from the onset was envisioned as a right that would secure against corrupt and tyrannical rulers. But today, and like the time of Mill, freedoms of expression, opinion and the press is/was not solely geared towards bringing to light the many evils that ravage our society, however to build up a well informed
In this essay, I will discuss John Stuart Mill’s argument concerning government in relation to utilitarianism, and why freedom of speech is important. Utilitarianism is a form of philosophy that relies on moral systematic theories, which include principles that offer discussion. Utilitarianism is considered to be a version of consequentialism, which is that the morality of an action is determined exclusively by appeal to its consequences. The foundation that forms the premise of utilitarianism is contingent on two parts. One being from an account of utility or what is intrinsically good.
Interestingly, Ferguson (2011, p. 75) describes Frederick the Great as a ruler opposed to the Machiavellian preference for the balancing of power and being instead a ruler in favor of preventive wars. His discussion significantly points to two different types of realism introduced in the class lectures – Classical Realism and Structural Realism (Neorealism). On one hand, Nicolo Machivelli is among thinkers recognized as major writers and contributors to the school of classical realism. Central to the classical realist school are Machivelli’s key concepts of state national interest and political power; he emphasizes that a good politician must take decisions that are merely in the national interest of his state, and at the same time ensure his state’s security and survival. According to Machivelli, a good politician is thus a ruler in search of power and in favor of preventive wars.
Sorel 's Reflections on Violence is not a mere intellectual endeavor; rather, it is a revolutionary guideline. As Chiaria Bottici notes in A Philosophy of Political Myth, this Sorel 's text 'clearly has an activist intent: to develop a severe critique of the parliamentary socialists and their neglect of the primary role played by proletarian violence in history ' (Bottici 2007, 159). In Reflections on Violence Sorel tries to develop a specific revolutionary ethics which will be true to the genuine Marxism. He explicitly states that the task of his study is 'to deepen our understanding of moral conduct ' (Sorel 2004, 40). It is crucial that moral conduct is associated here with political practices and,
This is quickly remedied by looking back on one of the big themes throughout the essay, which is responsibility. In Sartre’s conception of freedom, we cannot uncouple it from responsibility. We already know that with our freedom, comes the burden of responsibility; the burden of shouldering the responsibility for not only our freedom and actions, but for the freedom of others. Surely the political situation at the time influenced Sartre’s views. It was the end of World War Two and one could imagine that the idea of freedom, sudden and new found freedom after a war, after being under occupation, would have been an interesting concept to debate.
It calls for a reevaluation of how governing documents should be interpreted. By providing that the original Declaration had inconsistencies between the text and what happens in reality, it calls for people to act on their right to mold the political system into a just one. Works like “Freedom’s Plow” and these alternative declaration work to show that laws are not always implemented or upheld fairly. These works also show that politicians and their constituents should seek to learn from past mistakes, just as America was built by analyzing the grievances of the British rule over the
The opposite theory, is a defense of purism, which abolishes prejudice by prohibiting some words, opinions or expressions (such as racism, homophobia or sexism), seen as a help for prejudice. I will defend purism, as I strongly believe that pluralism has many negative sides that don’t belong to our modern democracies. Democracy is developed around the idea of a government « of the people, by the people, for the people » (Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln, 1863). Our western societies are in majority democracies. According to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, « Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the principle of holding periodic and genuine elections by universal suffrage are essential elements of democracy.
Libertarianism is one among them, which is looked as a political philosophy that strongly focuses on the component of justice. According to this theory, people as persons have to be treated with justice, and the rights for their possessions have to be respected. The most popular libertarianism theory is “entitlement theory” proposed by Robert Nozick, (1974). According to him, distributive justice basically comprises of three principles including, principle of justice in acquisition, principle of justice in transfer and principle of rectification for violating the previous two principles (Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, 2002, para.
“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind” (Mill 515). These words by John Stuart Mill are a superb example of the indisputable human right that is freedom of speech. This topic has been one of the most controversial throughout history. The necessity of freedom of speech for the progress of humanity should be an ample argument for it to be acknowledged. Why would it be necessary for humanity to progress, though?