John Stuart Mill Principle Analysis

Too much of heat can damage helmet. Do not use chemical solvents on helmet. Do not share your helmet with other people. It should be for personal use only. Selecting a well fitting Helmet Buying a well fitted best budget bike helmet is good for your overall safety when riding bike.

I want to live life like I am dying. I think it is better to take risks and perhaps make some mistakes rather than to remain cautious and risk nothing. First, life would never be boring if I was always taking fun risks. An example of a fun risk I would take would be jumping off a cliff into the lake because I would not know how deep the water is. Second, any stupid risks I take that I think may have been a mistake in the first place would actually benefit me in the long run because I would learn from my mistakes.

2.3 A Panoramic View: John Stuart Mill’s Defence of Liberty John Stuart Mill makes a very necessary and significant distinction in the opening lines of his book On Liberty. He spells out legibly the theme of his essay as he indicates: “The subject of this Essay is not the so-called Liberty of the Will, so unfortunately opposed to the misnamed doctrine of Philosophical Necessity; but Civil, or Social Liberty: the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual.” By this statement, we could stipulate explicitly, yet briefly that, J.S. Mill’s theory of liberty has little to do with the so called argument between determinism and free will. Its focus is largely directed towards the political cum ethical mode of coexistence among human beings.

“Realm of Ends” formulation of the categorical imperative, states that we must “act in accordance with the maxims of a member giving universal laws for merely possible kingdom of ends.” (4:439) It acts as a social contract. Kant further explains it that “a rational being belongs as a member of the kingdom of ends when he gives universal laws in it but is also himself subject to those laws.” (4:434) Being subject to a law does not contradict with the concept of a rational being as an end in itself, because it is not like a slavery since it is not subject to arbitrary will. Just the opposite, since it draws central points from the first and second formulation, “the will of a member could regard itself as at the same time giving universal law through its maxim” (4:434) and no member will see another member as a mere mean.

(Hunter, 2001, p.306) There is no exception for rational individuals in the world to escape from the law of categorical imperative. The presentation of categorical imperative is somehow like a test of morality (Hunter, 2001, p.306), rather than just a moral concept. Moral maxim is of vital necessity in the determination of morality for an action. From Kant’s view, an action can be treated as moral when it is motivated by one’s maxim, while it also suits the universal law.

If you compare the two you can see that even though they aren’t the same, in the context of theory, it gets the same meaning, as being free from oppression imposed by authority, is liberty, having liberty is being free from oppression, and therefor, throughout the paper, the world will be used as having the same meaning as different theorist use different words. John Stuart Mill is a “British philosopher, economist, moral and political theorist, and administrator, was the most influential English-speaking philosopher of the nineteenth century” (Wilson). He’s known Another person is Philip Petit, who argues for republican freedom, which is different from libertarian freedom that Mill argues for. While Mill focuses freedom on individually and state, Petit argues that pure freedom is not being controlled by anything. Comparing those two gives the conclusion

His theory conceives human rights as rights of citizens rather than of human beings. The theory is construed for a body of people who form a political society rather than the human race forming a moral community . Reality however shows that human nature is not an immutable essence but a mixture of elements and values such as possibilities, interest, power and immunities, dignity, rationality and liberty. The conflict of theories can be solved by balancing prima facie rights which are not absolute but are dealt with case by case, the balancing is to be against each other not wishing merits in terms of some different ultimate standard of value such as

Existentialism finds the answer to the absurdities present in the world including issues about human freedom. Dudley (ND) averred that Kant’s idea of freedom is inclusive than the libertarian thought. Further, Kant illuminated that choices are determined by autonomous will and are not subject to restrictions. Likewise, there is freedom of the will and that will is subject to the condition of genuine freedom of choice.

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.

The natural law has been understood to mean variety of things to different jurists/ philosophers viz. , ideals, which guide the legal development and administration , basic moral quality in law which prevents a total separation of “is “ from “ought”, or the method of discovering perfect law by reason. By summarizing the views of different jurists and philosophers, the term Natural law can be summarized as summation of those rule and principles, which derive their existence from a supreme (Eternal) source, rather than a political / worldly authority. • Theory of Natural rights:

In Sandel’s “The Public Philosophy of Contemporary Liberalism,” he highlights that the different forms of liberalism put forth a set a values (e.g. the freely-choosing self, toleration, and rights). Minimalist Liberalism argues that different opinions need a neutral framework for social peace. Consequently, one must bracket their controversial attitudes even though this does not seem to solve the problem. Toleration allows for diversity to flourish and equality to thrive, so long as the government be restricted in using coercion to cause citizens to act “morally,” according to their standards. One may argue that the reason to protect rights in today’s society is to ensure that the government remain neutral to protect individuals from coercion

Sometimes it is best to understand the law first before obeying it. When one thinks a law is unjust, they will go out of their way to go against it and do something about it. At a certain point, one doesn’t have to act accordingly to what they don’t believe in, but they can’t do whatever pleases them. There has been many controversies involving the act of non violence civil disobedience. Although most feel like breaking an unjust law might be the best solution to what they think is right, in reality, I agree to the fact that people are afraid to face the consequences that are given after their actions.

With this being said, an informed individual may be less driven to help another person due to the fact that they want to avoid a run in with the law themselves. When it comes to morality, it is not contingent upon ones religious background or the laws that govern the state or province in which they live, rather ones morality is contingent upon the guiding principles that govern said individuals life. For example, when it comes to the scenario described above, ones morals may tell them that intervening and placing themselves in harms way is not justifiable and surpasses practicability. Whereas another individuals morals may tell them to adhere to the ideal of universalizability, which means that they a lot the same action to another that they would want done onto them and thusly they would get involved. With all of these things in mind, ones morality is not strictly limited to their religion or laws but rather what they find to be permissible and

Should the state enforce a limit to Wilt Chamberlain's basketball earnings through taxation? In this essay I am going to argue that the state should enforce a limit on Wilt Chamberlain’s earnings through taxation. I will use the ideas of Fried and the idea of a paradox in Nozick’s thinking to prove this. Nozick believes that people have a right to the things they own and no one else can take it from them and the only way they can be taken is through the theory of just transfer, this being: A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in accusation is entitled to that holding