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. Despite the fact, critics assert, that Mill’s theory of liberty is much more individualistic, he like Aristotle is not ignorant of the fact that the “human being is by nature a social or a political animal.” In this line of thought, Mill indicates that liberty is one of the issues which border much on the relationship that coexists among people in a society but it is seldom addressed.

“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. On the other hand, autonomy is not equal to self-mastery. For Kant, it is essentially social.

(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. (Hunter, 2001, p.306) Therefore, it can be concluded that moral maxim is the standard of deciding whether an action is moral or not.

Liberty is also used and viewed as the same category of theory, and has the definition “The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s behavior or political views” (Liberty). 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.

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. Kant wrote the Metaphysics of Ethics (1797) where he described his ethical system that is based on a belief that the reason is the final authority for morality.

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: According to John Locke the human beings are entitled with certain basic rights( of life liberty and property) which are conferred upon them by God and nature. These