John Stuart Mill the liberal and Jean-Jacques Rousseau the republican, are two political philosophers whom focussed on the integration of political liberty with the relationship found between that of the individual, society and the state by the means of power or authority. Both of these political thinkers formed their arguments in their writings, namely; On Liberty (1859) by Mill, and The Social Contract (1913) by Rousseau. On a more specific scale, their views differed in much contrast, whereby Rousseau claims that people and individuals of society may only acquire the entity of freedom through a transitioning process from the natural state to the civil state, whereby they would have to conform to the general will as the common good. On the
…show more content…
Suppose that the majority of the population are non-smokers; they dislike smoking, and would without doubt vote against the sale of cigarettes and tobacco, with the implementation of safer and healthier alternatives such as e-cigarettes. This would cause a sense of dominance amongst the minority who do not agree on implementing e-cigarettes and actually enjoy smoking cigarettes and tobacco for their own self and personal satisfaction. The minority may defend that many smokers, smoke discretely in designated areas where they inflict little to no harm to anyone but themselves, and would vote against such an act. But inevitably, within modern democracies the problem would be resolved through a voting system conducted by the state and the involvement of society (including both majority and minority parties), which would consequently favour the majority and vote out the sale of cigarettes and tobacco as per-the above. This conception of dominance suppresses the minority’s beliefs and ideas of personal freedom through societal generalisations of the majority and with the aid of law and policy of the governing state, the majority will always have the upper-hand to win in democratic …show more content…
But if a person is to place himself in such a position whereby he inflicts harm upon himself specifically due to self-acts of free behaviour (smoking), society may not intervene especially if it believes it is for the better of that person. (Mill, 1859) Mills’ reasoning for this is simply based on the notion of individuality or independence of the individual where they may do as they please in accordance to their own personal agenda of freedom. (Mill, 1859, p. 15)
Having stated that, we must acknowledge here that Mill’s theory on liberty is beginning to form more of an individualistic view of society where it aims at enlightening the individual rather than society whole. In addition to that, note that Mill’s view here contradicts significantly to that of Rousseau’s communitarian one, which we will analyse in the
Suppose that the majority of the population are non-smokers; they dislike smoking, and would without doubt vote against the sale of cigarettes and tobacco, with the implementation of safer and healthier alternatives such as e-cigarettes. This would cause a sense of dominance amongst the minority who do not agree on implementing e-cigarettes and actually enjoy smoking cigarettes and tobacco for their own self and personal satisfaction. The minority may defend that many smokers, smoke discretely in designated areas where they inflict little to no harm to anyone but themselves, and would vote against such an act. But inevitably, within modern democracies the problem would be resolved through a voting system conducted by the state and the involvement of society (including both majority and minority parties), which would consequently favour the majority and vote out the sale of cigarettes and tobacco as per-the above. This conception of dominance suppresses the minority’s beliefs and ideas of personal freedom through societal generalisations of the majority and with the aid of law and policy of the governing state, the majority will always have the upper-hand to win in democratic …show more content…
But if a person is to place himself in such a position whereby he inflicts harm upon himself specifically due to self-acts of free behaviour (smoking), society may not intervene especially if it believes it is for the better of that person. (Mill, 1859) Mills’ reasoning for this is simply based on the notion of individuality or independence of the individual where they may do as they please in accordance to their own personal agenda of freedom. (Mill, 1859, p. 15)
Having stated that, we must acknowledge here that Mill’s theory on liberty is beginning to form more of an individualistic view of society where it aims at enlightening the individual rather than society whole. In addition to that, note that Mill’s view here contradicts significantly to that of Rousseau’s communitarian one, which we will analyse in the