The object of this essay is to show a simple evaluation of john Stuart mill principle “an action is right that it does not cause harm to another person” I will be exercising both evaluations and explaining why the positive side outweighs the negative side of the principle, in a society that it’s people are emancipated to control their own opinions.
Introduction: John Stuart Mill essay on Consideration On representative Government, is an argument for representative government. The ideal form of government in Mill's opinion. One of the more notable ideas Mill is that the business of government representatives is not to make legislation. Instead Mill suggests that representative bodies such as parliaments and senates are best suited to be places of public debate on the various opinions held by the population and to act as watchdogs of the professionals who create and administer laws and policy.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two theorists known for their views regarding the social contract. Both theorists study the origins of government and the level of authority given to the state over individuals, thoroughly constructing their arguments through the social contract. A philosophical approach was used in both Hobbes’s and Locke’s arguments, however supporting different authorities. Thomas Hobbes advocates for absolutism whilst John Locke advocates for a constitutional government. Through the close examination of the state of nature, the relationships between subject and sovereign and views regarding the social contract, one can observe a more sensible basis for constructing a successful political society.
Mill argues that each individual can exert his freedom so long as it does not harm anyone else (Mill 1863). What a person does in his life is his business, and I can express disdain or aversion to his actions. If neither of us infringe on one another’s liberty, we cannot act in a way that would limit or remove each other’s liberty (Mill 1863). Contrarily, for self-defense, society and/or the victimized individual can impede on the perpetrator’s liberty if the perpetrator has impinged on someone else’s right to liberty (Mill 1863). Harm to someone’s liberty, whether done actively or inactively, therefore should be legally condemnable (Mill 1863).
“After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems
Locke’s definition of liberty depends on whether the person is in the state of nature, in which people are “without subordination or subjection” (Locke 101) or if they have formed into a commonwealth, or whenever “any number of men are so united into one society, as to quit every one his executive power of the law of nature, and resign it to the public” (Locke 137-38). In the Lockean state of nature, men have a “freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons” (Locke 101). This freedom is still limited by what Locke refers to as the law of nature, or that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions” (Locke 102). He also defines the liberty of the state of nature as “not to be under any will or legislative authority of man” (Locke 109). In his form of commonwealth, there is more limited freedom, in which liberty is to “be under no legislative power, but that established, by the consent of the commonwealth” (Locke 110).
This ideology is counter to that of liberalism as it infringes on the natural rights of its citizens, and it is undemocratic as this society would not have the consent of the governed as a whole. Furthermore, counters the rule of law because the author believes the authority should never be challenged, and therefore the author suggests that the authority is exempt of these laws. A thinker such as Hobbes would agree with the author of this source as he believed that without a strong government it would lead to nation wide chaos, such as that that the author describes through the use of the phrase, “A society that allows authority to be challenged will never succeed.”. Additionally, Locke would disagree with all parts of this source, as he believed that individuals know for themselves what is best and therefore should have the freedom to make their own decisions. For the second sentence of this source Locke and Rousseau would both disagree as they believed that consent of the governed was vital to society, which directly contradicts the authors issues with the challenging
The main philosophy of John Locke, a famous and well-known Enlightenment philosopher, involves his theory of natural law and natural rights given to mankind. In this particular article, entitled “The Consent of the Governed”, part of his work Two Treatises of Government, Locke addresses importance of man’s natural state and its main characteristics, the forming of a government and what it offers and the relationship between a government and its subjects. According to Locke, man’s natural state is a state of equality, with no man being of higher power than another and all are welcome to have complete control over their own lives. He states that, by nature, men are “all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate,
John Locke and John Stuart Mill’s dilemma in swimming to the islands of Fatherland and Bourgeouseville demand them to consider several key elements of each civilization. Each societies attitudes towards A fundamental element for Locke and Mill to consider in their decision, is the core purpose of government on each island, and the impact these different goals have on each civilization. The role of government in Fatherland, which is a Fascist regime, reflects the Fascist emphasis on government involvement in the lives of its people. In Benito Mussolini’s “The Doctrine of Fascism”, he describes the Fascist state as “the highest and most powerful form of personality, is a force, but a spiritual force, which takes over all the forms of moral and intellectual life of a man.” (pg.
With a world teeming of vast cultures and beliefs, it is difficult to claim what is moral versus what is simply just law from one person to the next. John Stuart Mill, an English philosopher, tells of a social idea branded by its name ‘utilitarianism,’ which outlines his ideations. He utilizes many different types of syntax to create and defend his points. These types include question and answer, various styles of sentences, and finally through antithesis. With the help of his inciteful writing style, his main points of his philosophy are able to be glorified and preached from one person to the next.
John Locke discusses within in his book, “Second Treatise of Government,” the concepts of natural rights of individuals as well as the legitimate exercise of political power. Within his writing, Locke links his beliefs to a theory of personal property. This joining of ideas helps Locke make an argument against mainly unjust governments. In addition to his argument, Locke aims to explain how he believes that people have the right to rebel against their own government. In fact, he promotes people to rebel against their own government because everyone should have a government that they trust.
Democracy has many shortcomings that restrict and prevent choice in individuals. Democracy is easily manipulated by governmental agencies, and democracy is no different from previous systems regarding popular repression. Patrick Henry and Dalton Trumbo successfully juxtapose the ideal image of democracy against its actual image through illustrative symbols. Both recognize that forces outside of the general public have shifted the democratic process to only support a plutocratic agenda. Unlike mainstream sources, Henry and Trumbo do not whitewash Western Democracy, instead, both focus on it’s negative aspects, and propose solutions for our ignorant, decadent society.
Two Concepts of Liberty Summary of the essay: In this essay, the famous political theorist Isaiah Berlin tries to differentiate between the notions of positive liberty and negative liberty. Berlin briefly discusses the meaning of the word ‘freedom’. He says that a person is said to free when no man or body of men interferes with his activity. He makes reference to many philosophers in the essay, but there is more emphasis on the thoughts of J. S. Mill and Rousseau, the former being a firm advocate of negative liberty while the latter believes strongly in the ideals of positive liberty.
I chose to review the fifth chapter of “New Ideas From Dead Economists” titled The Stormy Mind of John Stuart Mill. John Stuart Mill was born in 1806 in London to two strict parents who began to educate their son at a very young age. Mill’s father was James Mill, a famous historian and economist, who began to teach his son Greek at the age of three. The book reports that “by eight, the boy had read Plato, Xenophon, and Diogenes” and by twelve “Mill exhausted well-stocked libraries, reading Aristotle and Aristophanes and mastering calculus and geometry” (Buchholz 93). The vast amount of knowledge that Mill gained at a young age no doubt assisted him in becoming such a well-recognized philosopher and economist.
In the United States, people always talk about freedom and equality. Especially they want elections could be more democratic. In American Democracy in Peril, Hudson’s main argument regarding chapter five “Election Without the People’s Voice,” is if elections want to be democratic, they must meet three essential criteria, which are to provide equal representation of all citizens, to be mechanisms for deliberation about public policy issues, and to control what government does. Unfortunately, those points that Hudson mentions are what American elections do not have. American elections do not provide equal representation to everyone in the country.