Analysis Of John Stuart Mill's Social Contract

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 …show more content…
He argues that the proper conduct is on how an individual should act whenever they are participating in society. Due to the fact that some people cause harm and cannot be punished by law, Mill explains that the opinion and judgment by society is enough for punishment. This causes some notable problems because in fact, it may not be enough punishment for an individual, especially if they continue to cause injury to others. Also, the author encourages public scrutiny and criticism of the individual causing harm. Whenever society gains jurisdiction, they can disclose their opinion of an individual and warn others of the potential danger that they may cause. Mill typically does not encourage coercion, but in this particular situation, he does. The author’s overall argument is complex and he provides an explanation as to why he feels this particular way about how an individual should act and when it is an acceptable time for society to intervene. I agree with the author’s point in this context, but I do not think that society should ever be belittling and scrutinizing where they stoop down to the level of criticizing a certain individual. Each person can create an opinion of their own and society should not encourage demeaning remarks because then they are causing harm just like the individual that is already being punished for their

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    Can society advance without all of its people? In John Stuart Mill’s essay “On Liberty”, he makes the argument that we should have the freedom to perform any actions we wish, as long as those are not causing harm to any others. Mill makes a number of justifications for his argument throughout his essay. He understands that in order for society to function, there needs to be certain restrictions on individual’s liberty. He believes society’s control over an individual’s liberty should only be restricted to prevent harm to others.…

    • 1816 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    It should be looked at case by case to take into consideration content and then determined whether the act immoral based on sound justifications in the terms Dworkin lays out. Society has a right to protect itself from harm and not what enacts an emotional response. Our society is strong enough to undergo moral changes that take place overtime and these changes do not corrupt our morals to the point of disintegration. If an immoral act is harmful against an individual or society as a whole there is a right to take action to rectify the situation so harm is no longer permitted. Devlin and Dworkin agree that not every individual is capable of giving consent and there should be restrictions of what individuals are capable of such, this would allow legal intervention in some of the acts Devlin considers immoral.…

    • 1204 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Harm is an action that is “injurious or set[s] back important interest[s] of particular people, interests in which they have rights,” whereas a mere offence is something that Mill’s does not see as a defence under the harm principle (Brink 2007, ch.3.6, para. 2). The second concept beneath the harm principle is that this principle is imposed to prevent someone from trying to cause harm in a certain way. It can become difficult trying to guard individuals from harm, therefore, allowing for citizens to self-govern themselves so they can determine what is safe and harmful. From what we can understand, the harm principle regulates a relationship between individuals and the government, however Mill’s wants this theory to dig deeper and apply its foundation within the family (Brink 2007, ch.3.6).…

    • 1465 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Realistically, not all members of society follow the same set of morals, therefore it is possible for there to be discrepancies between what one person regards as suitable behaviour, and what another person may deem inappropriate. However, both Bentham and Kant agree that individuals must make decisions based upon what the desired outcome is. Therefore, if individuals in society desire peace and safety, they must avoid disrupting social order by not committing crimes or behaving in a way that would cause others harm. Bentham, however further believes that any action that will serve and benefit the majority should be taken, even if it means going against what is thought to be morally right. This means that if an action is taken in good faith, and the desired outcome positive and beneficial to society, it must be taken, even if that means that a member of that society is harmed in doing so.…

    • 1044 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Interpersonal Communication and Conflict Communication is becoming a major issue in today’s society people prefer to use other methods of communication rather then speaking face-to-face to a person. People do not like to admit and address their conflicts therefore it is unsuccessful to overcome conflicts of communication. Conflict is a normal factor between people, but it can lead to destruction of relationships by not using the proper management of communication. The main factor in communication is being able to understand and accept other peoples’ perspectives. There are styles of interpersonal conflict management that can expand positive ways of communication between individuals.…

    • 1198 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Mill implied that a person’s conduct and concepts deserves to be protected from social violation. A person’s act should be given freely and should not have any influences from customs, expectations, or public opinion. Mills indicated that the choice of behavior should come from the way we ought to be even it happens to be different from what others are not accustomed to (Philosophy Pages, 2015). Mill stressed that each individual is accountable for their selves that consist of their own feelings, ideas, and interests. However, the state justifies in controlling and limiting the behaviors of those posing harm to others through a violation of their rights.…

    • 1137 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Justice is associated with the concept of everything plays a natural role, coming from Feinberg and Gross. Justice must maintain the status quo for society. It is a just act as long as justice is being attempted in the proper context of justices; There are multiple forms of justice and those that decide to go against the state must know why. The need for civil disobedience can be seen when the people see a need for change in their community. There are times when a time for change has come and that time can be because politicians refuse to listen to the people or take action about a cause.…

    • 599 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    In these situations, is important to recognize that it is not the entirety of the opinion that one must pay attention to, but the context in which the opinion is shared. For the benefit of all Mill’s writes, “the liberty of the individual must thus far be limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people. But if he refrains from molesting others in what concerns them,…

    • 2454 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    On the other hand I think that it is not the power that is the main problem, but the morality of people, which uses every chance, even the unjust one to gain power and control over others. In order to end the corruptive influence that power has on us we should change the way we think of the world and the real importance and meaning of power. There also should be stated rules that would prevent the greed of power from increasing, and people from thinking that power is something that makes them…

    • 727 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Rousseau's Social Contract

    • 1140 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Rousseau believes that if an individual (the minority) refuse to obey the social compact or general will (the majority) by means of the particular will, it must then mean that these individuals cannot make the righteous decisions for themselves and would need the guidance of the collective in order to join the social compact and conform to the general will, as the general will represents the meaning of what is good for all, hence; ‘to be forced to be free’. In other words, Rousseau fully entrust his notion on the general will as he believes that the common good does not fall in one particular aspect of an individual, but rather that of the whole society. If these individuals refute, and do not conform to the contract, it must be the responsibility of society or general will to force them to be free, and to therefore conform to the…

    • 1140 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays