John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all addressed the issue of freedom and law within a society. Mill's “On Liberty”, and Rousseau’s discourse “On the Social Contract” are all absorbing fictional works which underline the concept of the ideal state of each in the eyes of both these men and present different visions of the very nature of man’s freedom and the law. The three have distinct views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies. This essay aims to analyze the differences in the views of these two theorists and to include my own opinion on which of
…show more content…
He says that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. This means that if an individual is not doing any harm to anyone in their actions, then the society has no right to interfere. He therefore sees the law as a mechanism which should allow people to be free from limitations as long as they don’t harm other people. In the book On Liberty Mill says, “over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign, the individual, not society, should be free to choose how they want to live”. This is what negative freedom is, the freedom to do as you want in society.
Discussing the views of these theorists leaves me to ask the question, would you rather live in a society where people are free as to do as they should or as they want?
The main problem I have with Rousseau’s theory of the general will is the way it deals with independence. The social contract demands that if an individual disagrees with the general will then they must be wrong, and for their own good they must be forced to conform to it by the ‘entire body’ . This could mean only one thing, he will be forced to be free, the
He says that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. This means that if an individual is not doing any harm to anyone in their actions, then the society has no right to interfere. He therefore sees the law as a mechanism which should allow people to be free from limitations as long as they don’t harm other people. In the book On Liberty Mill says, “over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign, the individual, not society, should be free to choose how they want to live”. This is what negative freedom is, the freedom to do as you want in society.
Discussing the views of these theorists leaves me to ask the question, would you rather live in a society where people are free as to do as they should or as they want?
The main problem I have with Rousseau’s theory of the general will is the way it deals with independence. The social contract demands that if an individual disagrees with the general will then they must be wrong, and for their own good they must be forced to conform to it by the ‘entire body’ . This could mean only one thing, he will be forced to be free, the