In the realm of political and religious influence, philosophical thought often finds itself at immense odds with the ruling parties. Endeavors of free will and personal betterment can lay in opposition with the goals of an overtly authoritarian ruling class, or even the supposed mass ignorance democracy is damned to fall liable to. John Stuart Mill expanded upon this greatly in Utilitarianism and On Liberty, equating the pursuit of personal liberty to be not only the “protection from tyrannical rule” (Mill 3), but also, at its core, the very definition of humanness. His “Greatest Happiness Principle (Mill 244) expanded upon man’s innate desire to live as he best sees fit, choosing pleasurable consequences in utilitarian actions due to their
…show more content…
Mill regards a “person whose desires and impulses are his own [to be an] expression of his own nature” (62), therefore arguing that free choice and individual actions are central to one’s very concept of self. Such everyday revelations do not have the capacity to grow in a tightly regulated environment, in which rampant censorship effectively crushes any cry of dissonance. Likewise, the value in hearing heretical and oppositional opinions are paramount to the refinement of one's own, and may even possibly result in radical societal shifts (Mill …show more content…
The first is a principle of universal achievement, and encourages a society of actions based upon the greatest gain. The later does present a deeper understanding of happiness, but at the expense of a lifetime of misunderstanding and searching, coupled with a higher risk of political persecution. While Socrates claims to find value and happiness in this itself, then he paints a bleaker future for humanity’s achievement. He presents an interesting dilemma; if even the elites and specialists of society do not fully understand their roles(Plato 26-27), how can the common man? In what capacity is he able to lead a fulfilling life? And if Socrates himself is admittedly unable to grapple with such abstractions, and turn them into concrete principles, how can he expect his fellow Athenians, disinterested with the field of philosophy, to do the
Mill regards a “person whose desires and impulses are his own [to be an] expression of his own nature” (62), therefore arguing that free choice and individual actions are central to one’s very concept of self. Such everyday revelations do not have the capacity to grow in a tightly regulated environment, in which rampant censorship effectively crushes any cry of dissonance. Likewise, the value in hearing heretical and oppositional opinions are paramount to the refinement of one's own, and may even possibly result in radical societal shifts (Mill …show more content…
The first is a principle of universal achievement, and encourages a society of actions based upon the greatest gain. The later does present a deeper understanding of happiness, but at the expense of a lifetime of misunderstanding and searching, coupled with a higher risk of political persecution. While Socrates claims to find value and happiness in this itself, then he paints a bleaker future for humanity’s achievement. He presents an interesting dilemma; if even the elites and specialists of society do not fully understand their roles(Plato 26-27), how can the common man? In what capacity is he able to lead a fulfilling life? And if Socrates himself is admittedly unable to grapple with such abstractions, and turn them into concrete principles, how can he expect his fellow Athenians, disinterested with the field of philosophy, to do the