Connor Rogers
PHIL 101L 141
Mill Essay
Mill’s definition of freedom is the absence of coercion. Coercion is getting someone to change their behaviors with force, threats, bribery, and deceit. So according to his definition if you are to change one's behavior using any of these you are taking away their freedom. One form of coercion is governmental and this is by making certain actions illegal. A couple examples of governmental coercion are gun control, smoking bans, helmets/seat belts etc. The question that often comes up is: When is it ok to coerce? Some may think never because everyone has natural rights to freedom. Others think that if they disapprove then that is enough to essentially coerce someone. Mill’s answer to this is the principle …show more content…
First, we ask ourselves the question of if the act we are considering coercing against, which is gun ownership, threatens significant harm to identifiable others. Although gun ownership does not threaten any harm itself the owning of guns does result in accidental and purposeful deaths for example in children. The deaths from gun related incidents is considered significant harm to identifiable others such as children which is why we must use the principle of utility to decide what is the best way to coerce against it. One choice of coercion Mill would consider is completely banning guns. While this will get rid of the accidental deaths and murder in the streets it will also take away the culture from those who hunt and this could significantly impact their lives depending on how much they rely off hunting. A second possible option would be to not coerce which would save this culture of hunting but will also continue to result in the accidental deaths of children and murder. Another possible option could be to regulate the guns we are able to own such as banning assault rifles and attachments to those rifles that enhance its power. While this could get rid of the numerous mass murders that occur it would also be taking away part of hunting culture and we could still have those accidental deaths in homes from other types of guns such as pistols. Mill would have to weigh all the options to see which would prove to maximize the most utility. Although Mill believes in maximizing utility, there are opponents to him that argue his
PHIL 101L 141
Mill Essay
Mill’s definition of freedom is the absence of coercion. Coercion is getting someone to change their behaviors with force, threats, bribery, and deceit. So according to his definition if you are to change one's behavior using any of these you are taking away their freedom. One form of coercion is governmental and this is by making certain actions illegal. A couple examples of governmental coercion are gun control, smoking bans, helmets/seat belts etc. The question that often comes up is: When is it ok to coerce? Some may think never because everyone has natural rights to freedom. Others think that if they disapprove then that is enough to essentially coerce someone. Mill’s answer to this is the principle …show more content…
First, we ask ourselves the question of if the act we are considering coercing against, which is gun ownership, threatens significant harm to identifiable others. Although gun ownership does not threaten any harm itself the owning of guns does result in accidental and purposeful deaths for example in children. The deaths from gun related incidents is considered significant harm to identifiable others such as children which is why we must use the principle of utility to decide what is the best way to coerce against it. One choice of coercion Mill would consider is completely banning guns. While this will get rid of the accidental deaths and murder in the streets it will also take away the culture from those who hunt and this could significantly impact their lives depending on how much they rely off hunting. A second possible option would be to not coerce which would save this culture of hunting but will also continue to result in the accidental deaths of children and murder. Another possible option could be to regulate the guns we are able to own such as banning assault rifles and attachments to those rifles that enhance its power. While this could get rid of the numerous mass murders that occur it would also be taking away part of hunting culture and we could still have those accidental deaths in homes from other types of guns such as pistols. Mill would have to weigh all the options to see which would prove to maximize the most utility. Although Mill believes in maximizing utility, there are opponents to him that argue his