Mill's On Liberty By John Stuart Mill And John Locke

1161 Words 5 Pages
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. While both are strong about their stances their opinions differ.
In John Stuart Mill’s second chapter of On Liberty he presents one overarching conclusion, that any censorship of expression of opinion must be completely prevented.
…show more content…
He considers an opposing viewpoint that “If we were never to act on our opinions, because those opinions may be wrong, we should leave all our interests uncared for, and all our duties unperformed” yet he combats this by stating that just because one does not act one their opinion does not mean they believe it to be wrong. They could have either learned from prior experience/history that said opinion may be true or that one may simply not open their opinion up to the chance of being wrong due to their desire for it to be true. The second objection that Mill addresses is that one might deter others opinions in order to preserve certain ones for society. Mill objects to this statement by stating that such an effort to silence an opinion merely shifts the infallibility and also that an opinions worth cannot be separated from its truth. Any efforts to silence an opinion would thus be futile and would not work.
Finally, one more important piece of Mills second chapter of On Liberty is his discussion of dead dogma. Dead dogma is essentially believing in an opinion despite having no understanding for why you should believe in said opinion or trust it. If one cannot grasp the concepts behind an opinion, then there is no reason for them to support it in the first place. Opinions that are supported by arguments that are not well formed or confusing
…show more content…
One who would object would be John Locke. In Locke’s A Second Treatise of Government he argues that the citizens within a society are under the understanding that the opinion of the majority is the way the society shall be governed. He argues that for society to be governed properly the citizens must give up their natural freedom and place their trust within the society. There are two main areas of freedom that must be given up for society to work. First the citizens must give themselves up to the law of the society, they must allow restrictions and limits to be placed upon them for the society to run effectively. Secondly the citizens must put themselves under the protection of the society and trust that they will be defended and taken care of. When this trust is given to the society and the government then they can effectively protect and ensure “the peace, safety, and public good of the people. This is contrary to what Mill would argue as he does not believe citizens should submit themselves to society and give away their rights. He believes that as an individual citizen you should fight for your opinion and never give into society. Doing so would be negative for

Related Documents