In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill outlines his unique political theory based on the liberty of men in society. His argument stands out because it is not typical social contract theory. It does not begin by examining men in the state of nature, it does not outline an ideal government structure, and the contract itself is vague, though not without a purpose. Mill establishes a social contract through the unconventional means of the “harm principle.” Through it he creates an agreement among men in a society to not harm each other in pursuit of their liberties. It binds citizens together to work for the greater good by pursuing their own interests. This principle applies to the harms seen among women in Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the
…show more content…
His social contract becomes more unique because it allows governments to establish their own form of hierarchy and rules, as long as they do not infringe on distinct freedoms. Because each society will be made up of different people with varying views on the standards of harm and liberty, each society should choose its best form of government and lawmaking to suit its needs. Mill defines this by saying, “The likings and dislikings of society, or of some powerful portion of it, are thus the main thing which has practically determined the rules laid down for general observance” (Mill 18). He believes not only should a government and its laws be suited to the opinions of the people, but it should adapt to the changes of attitude through new generations. In order to make his theory adaptable, Mill does not include a general standard for harm and government interference. He leaves this up to the states with just a few guidelines because he believes his theory can apply to many forms of government and societies. His “harm principle” is more universal than most social contract theories in that it can be the basis of many different government styles. Mill believes if a man is solely harming himself, the action is a part of his liberties. If his actions interfere with another’s freedom, he begins to break the social contract and the government has the capability to intrude (Mill 79). The …show more content…
They both focus on the aspect of harm and the effect it has on the citizens it targets. Mill’s “harm principle” is meant to be adaptable to the changing world and the states within it. This makes it an ideal social contract to aid in examining Wollstonecraft’s displayed inequality. Since the qualities of harm are not explicitly defined, they can be applied to the stated harms of women by Wollstonecraft. The social contract itself is instituted in her society, though solely among the men within it. She calls for the pact to be extended to women. This is a prime example of the purposeful flexibility of Mill’s theory. With the changing culture in her society, Mill’s contract has the ability to progress with the people within it, if they are allowed to enter it
His social contract becomes more unique because it allows governments to establish their own form of hierarchy and rules, as long as they do not infringe on distinct freedoms. Because each society will be made up of different people with varying views on the standards of harm and liberty, each society should choose its best form of government and lawmaking to suit its needs. Mill defines this by saying, “The likings and dislikings of society, or of some powerful portion of it, are thus the main thing which has practically determined the rules laid down for general observance” (Mill 18). He believes not only should a government and its laws be suited to the opinions of the people, but it should adapt to the changes of attitude through new generations. In order to make his theory adaptable, Mill does not include a general standard for harm and government interference. He leaves this up to the states with just a few guidelines because he believes his theory can apply to many forms of government and societies. His “harm principle” is more universal than most social contract theories in that it can be the basis of many different government styles. Mill believes if a man is solely harming himself, the action is a part of his liberties. If his actions interfere with another’s freedom, he begins to break the social contract and the government has the capability to intrude (Mill 79). The …show more content…
They both focus on the aspect of harm and the effect it has on the citizens it targets. Mill’s “harm principle” is meant to be adaptable to the changing world and the states within it. This makes it an ideal social contract to aid in examining Wollstonecraft’s displayed inequality. Since the qualities of harm are not explicitly defined, they can be applied to the stated harms of women by Wollstonecraft. The social contract itself is instituted in her society, though solely among the men within it. She calls for the pact to be extended to women. This is a prime example of the purposeful flexibility of Mill’s theory. With the changing culture in her society, Mill’s contract has the ability to progress with the people within it, if they are allowed to enter it