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.
I argue that while Mill’s principle of utility supports freedom in the ways he claims, government interference, which Mill strongly opposes, is necessary in order for freedom of thought and expression to support Mill’s utility. In this essay, I will briefly discuss Mill’s principle of utility. Then, I will discuss Mill’s liberty principle, and outline his two main arguments in favor of freedom of speech and ideas. Next, I will explain how Mill argues that freedom of thought and expression supports his principle of utility. Finally, I will advance an argument as to how Mill’s principle of utility might be better supported by government intervention; or rather, how government interference is necessary for freedom of thought and expression to increase utility (in the way Mill claims).
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
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.
The Libertarian theory or Free Press theory is one of the “Normative theories of press”. The theory originally came from libertarian thoughts from 16th century in Europe. It is an exact opposite of the authoritarian theory. Watson (2000) its first principle is that the free press is servant to none but its readership in its task of informing, educating and entertaining. It is believed that International trade and urbanization undermine the power of a rural aristocracy which leads various social movements like the Protestants reformation, which demands individual’s freedom and their own lives and free thoughts.
According to Mill each type “must be recognized and respected by any free society.” (Mill, 1859) Looking at Mill’s concept of the liberty of thought and opinion, we reflect on the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack. It was an act of violence in response to what Mill would consider freedom of opinion and thought. This links back to my original question; should expression be limited in certain circumstances? According to Mill each individual should be
Rawls believed that everyone in society should have had equal political rights, although social and economic inequalities existed, but only under the condition that they were to the maximum advantage of the least advantaged people in society. On the other hand, while philosopher Robert Nozick paid a generous tribute to the brilliance of Rawls’ philosophical construction, he provides a rejection to Rawls’ claims from a libertarian perspective. Libertarians have the desire to divide and limit power. That is, government will be limited generally through a written constitution limiting the powers that the people delegate to government (Boaz, 2015). Nozick stated that Rawls’ idea would have resulted in the restriction of free choice or forced distribution within the society.
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.
Democracy has long been considered by the modern society as one of the universal values and it has been used as a legitimate decision making method. According to Habermas in Three Normative Models of Democracy (Habermas, 1994), democracy is the institutionalization of the public use of reason jointly exercised by autonomous citizens. Deliberation needs to be freed of power imbalances in order to reach normative consensus based on rationality and equal participation. It is claimed that the goal of deliberate democracy is to achieve a just social order whereas a just social order is the social order which each individual and institution is constrained from committing unjust acts. This essay will argue that, in fact deliberate democracy is not a necessary condition for a just social order.
It is certainly true that there are always more than one way of looking at a situation, and finding truth within a situation can only be found if there are no limitations to people’s freedom of expressing their opinions on the said situation. Mill’s argument that since no-one is infallible, freedom of speech is necessary for the discovery and defence of truth (p443, John Stuart Mill and Freedom of Speech – Il Pensiero Politico 4.3: T.D Campbell. 1st Jan 1971) has been extremely influential in defending the freedom of speech. One of Mill’s core arguments when it comes to liberty and freedom of speech is that there is an inherent importance and duty to “act out” or express one’s opinion, that it is important for humans to engage in discussion as no-one person’s view is