Mill On Liberty

Improved Essays
The election of a democratic government, accountable to the popular will of the public, represents the majority who have historically sought to subjugate those who hold differing moral beliefs or viewpoints. This oppression is known as the “tyranny of the majority” (Mill 1859, p. 10) and is not exclusively political in nature. Although each individual may legitimately pursue their own ambitions, society has the means to diminish the right to freedom of self-expression by ostracising an individual for behaviour that differs from the social norm. Mill considers this to be an even more brutal form of tyranny than that which the government may impose upon us, as it is much more difficult to liberate yourself from. Consequently, the rules of conduct …show more content…
In On Liberty, Mill (1859, p. 60-61) offers four reasons as to why freedom of speech is essential; to deny the opinion of another is to assume that our views are never erroneous; sometimes an opinion may only be somewhat true, therefore free discussion is required to discover the whole truth; although people may express an absolute truth, if it is not discussed then others will lack the comprehension to understand it in its entirety and hold the opinion in contempt; the withholding regular and meaningful conversation results in the essence of a truth being lost upon us, because although people may acknowledge an opinion as being true, they find no way in which to relate it back their individual experiences. Mill refers to several examples of how a lack of open discussion contributes to denial, as well as an inadequate understanding of concepts. Relating this back to the thesis question, if somebody does not possess the self-awareness to understand their reasons for wanting to do something, they probably also lack the foresight to see how it may adversely affect the people around them too, thereby subjecting them to a will that is not their

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Why America Is Losing It’s Liberties And What We Can Do About It. “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”…

    • 383 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Explain one of the four reasons Mill gives for why we should have complete freedom of speech. Evaluate the reason you gave – is Mill right? Use examples. The Argument from Partial Truth-…

    • 799 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In a Democratic society many take freedom for granted, while others believe that they are not given enough freedom. Dave Eggers introduces us to a society that is searching for what they believe to be “total freedom”, while Megan Boler provides readers with examples of media in democracy and how freedom is portrayed in each form. Both sources allow the audience to see that freedom does require a balance of control. A world with total freedom would instead lead to a society with many feeling violated, this is why there needs to be some level of external control exerted on citizens. What needs to be found and determined is that proper balance of freedom, and how to address this balance with citizens of each and every community.…

    • 739 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The subject of an experiment cries out, “I can’t stand it. I’m not going to kill that man in there” (Milgram 120), as the experimenter compels his subject to administer deadly electrical shocks to another man. The subject clearly expresses his moral objections to these instructions, yet to influence his subject, the insistent experimenter does not lock the door, nor does he hold the subject at knifepoint- he only requests that the subject “Continue, please” (121). And so the subject continues.…

    • 1212 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    He believes that tyranny of the majority may allow society to infringe on individual freedom will lead to conformity and oppresses and threatens an individual’s freedom, helping it to promote social censorship. For example, Mill stated that tyranny of the majority is more horrible than political oppression because it will affect and permeate people’s lives more, (Mill, Pg. 4) This shows that regular people such as family, friends, colleagues, and classmates will have more of a direct impact on an individual than people at the political or national level, showing that it is not the government or society that needs to be in check, but the other individuals or group of people that are harming the individual. Mill explains that people who wants freedom from social tyranny has to resist social conformity and moral behaviors that does not fit with their ideals, beliefs, or lifestyles, in which society at this point is a tyrant that enslaves the soul. Protection must be made on the basis of principle and can only stop if the individual do harm to society…

    • 1913 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Mill saw the problem with modern society as resulting from the power of both the tyranny of the majority but also the tyranny of public opinion. He believed that public opinion had grown too strong to the point where “At present individuals are lost in the crowd. In politics it is almost a triviality to say that public opinion now rules the world.” (On Liberty, chapter III). The “lost in the crowd” metaphor is a powerful one that illustrates Mill’s view.…

    • 996 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    As society evolves and modernizes, so does the way that governments rule over their citizens. They begin to tailor their words and laws to make themselves appeal to the people, while true intentions stay hidden. These laws can scrape away at the very core of a civilization; taking them down from the inside. Especially in today’s age, where the lines between democracy and absolute power can be blurred by politicians who see themselves as above the law.…

    • 707 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    John Stuart Mill, a philosopher during the mid-1800’s, is known as one of the most important western political philosophers in the past three hundred years. Many of his arguments on freedom can be seen intertwined with the current way we run societies around the world today. Being a self proclaimed Utilitarian, Mill focuses his arguments on making the collective reside with the most utility possible, with utility being defined by happiness. To achieve maximum utility, Mill presents three larger arguments,the harm principle, experiments of living, and freedom of speech. Before one can begin to agree or criticize Mill's arguments they must first delve into the core of Mill’s teachings, the harm principle.…

    • 1836 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Throughout history philosophers have argued over every topic one could imagine however one of the most explored topics is the rights of citizens. What must those who enter a society under their free will give up to be an active member? Is the government allowed to ask you to give up some of your rights for the betterment of society? Questions such as these and countless more have been answered and debated by philosophers for years. Some of the most prominent arguments have been made by John Stuart Mill and John Locke.…

    • 1161 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Many individuals believe liberty is tied to democracy, and political choice is extremely important to Mill. Mill believes that the best form of government is Representative Government. In Representative Government, an individual has the ability to protect himself and his views. As Mill says, “Let a person have nothing to do for his country, and he will not care for it.” Meaning that if you do not let an individual have a choice, then he will have no motivation to be productive for society as a whole.…

    • 2226 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    In other words, if an individual rejects or contradicts the ideas expressed by the community, the community should be able to force that individual to submit to their opinions. It is at this point in which Rousseau and Mill differ. This act of forcing conformity would be seen as a form of tyranny to Mill who values the freedom of the individual. In order for society to progress, individual freedoms must always be expressed foremost. Indeed, Mill agrees that man should not behave in ways that would harm others but they should still be free to do as they wish.…

    • 1838 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    Mill’s’ essay also argues that freedom of speech and diversifying opinions act as a fuel that drives social progress. Mill states, “... the only unfailing and permanent source of improvement is liberty, since by it there are as many possible independent centres of improvement as there are individuals” (Mill 65). One can gather that Mill believes that liberty is necessary for improvement and the more liberty present in individual members of society the more persons influencing change. This is an important message for our society to receive and is in accordance with our liberal democratic society. It demonstrates the importance of individuals and how their freedoms positively contribute to society because, as Mill bluntly states, without individuality…

    • 2454 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Mill Vs Rousseau Analysis

    • 1418 Words
    • 6 Pages

    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…

    • 1418 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Mill focuses on the concept of a clear distinction between when the authority of society can limit individuality and when there can be “sovereignty of the individual over himself”; however, he also argues the point that control should be given whenever society and the individual have an interest in a particular part of human life (82). Mill rejects the notion of a social contract, which Locke argues for, but due to the protections provided by society, the citizens owe a return for these benefits. He defines the harm principle by each individual having the right to act however they please, as long as it does not affect the person undertaking the action. Society cannot intervene, even if the act the person is committing causes harm to them. Each…

    • 1426 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Mills argues, “[i]f all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” His justification of this is the belief that the loss of diversity in thought amongst society would deprive them of enrichment in knowledge. Mill believes freedom of speech should only be limited when harming others. In his famous corn dealer example (2002, pp. 46-47) he explains that individuals should be permitted to say as they wish without any restrictions as long as they do not harm others however, taking offence is understandable.…

    • 1624 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays