Mill Vs Sax Liberal Neutrality

Liberal Neutrality simply put, is the idea that the government or those in a position of power and influence should remain neutral when it comes to the personal freedoms and life-choices of the individual so long as the choices made by the individual do not harm others. In the scope of liberal neutrality, harm can be defined in the traditional sense of direct physical harm but also includes harms that may not be so easy to recognize, such as the infringement of any other individual’s rights or negatively affecting their ability to live their version of “the good life”. This definition of liberal neutrality is rooted in the writings of Authors Cary Coglianese and Mark Sagoff respectively, and is the definition that will serve as the underlying …show more content…
They both frame their arguments and notions around liberal neutrality in very different ways which may or may not have been due to the differences in their academic upbringings or perhaps simply a product of their time. It is evident though in their texts that Mill deals with liberty and liberal neutrality in a much broader sense, applying it to all the decisions individuals or societies make, whereas Sax mainly deals with decisions that apply only to National Parks and the natural world. Both, Joseph L. Sax’s Mountains Without Handrails: Reflections on the National Parks and John Stewart Mill’s On Liberty fall within a sort of spectrum with regard to the ways in which they relate to the idea of liberal neutrality and what they consider to be the ultimate version of “the good life”. It is my hope that this essay adequately brings to light some of the common themes and ideas that both Mill’s On Liberty and Sax’s Mountains Without Handrails both share about liberal neutrality and how the authors differences in personal thought and philosophies both strive for a version of the good life that is not too far removed from one …show more content…
Sax and John Stewart Mill’s writings relate to liberal neutrality is in the way that each of them writes concerning the idea of Paternalism. The term itself gains much of it’s meaning from the Latin word “Pater”, which translates to English as “Father” and is tied to the long-held belief that fathers know what is best for their children. In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Professor Emeritus, Gerald Dworkin defines paternalism as “…the interference of a state or an individual with another person, against their will, and defended or motivated by a claim that the person interfered with will be better off or protected from harm.” (Dworkin 2016). Paternalism is essentially the idea that either an individual, or group of individuals such as the government or society can interfere with or make decisions pertaining to the life of the individual as long as it leads to the overall betterment of the individual’s well-being. John Stuart Mill makes his position on paternalism quite evident as he states that “[the individual] is the person most interested in his own well-being…” and goes further to explain “the interference of society to overrule his judgment and purposes [instances] in what only regards himself, must be grounded in general presumptions and may be altogether wrong.” (Mill p.