John Stuart Mill is an advocate of utilitarianism. Many thinkers have considered sometimes force may contribute to greater collective utility than individual freedom. Can Mill defend utilitarianism and the harm principle: "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."
Through the drug addict, the notion, utility and freedom can contradict, is seen. If society dissuades someone from trying an addictive drug, e.g. opioids, society subsidizes further to their utility (and the collective utility) than if society lets them seek the drug. This is no objection since Mill does not set forth collective utility and individual freedom never …show more content…
with the opponents of improvement; but the only unfailing and permanent source of improvement is liberty since by it there are as many... independent centers of improvement as there are individuals.
If readers think Mill’s appeal to utility is what is best in this or that individual instance, we misread him. It is what gives to utility that appeals to him. Preventing someone from having an addictive drug is one case of stopping individuals from taking part in acts that can threaten their health; do we need to do this? Utility, for Mill, appeals to our concerns as progressive beings. This means our learning—and an exceptional source of learning is mistakes.
But is Mill right that liberty is a "source of improvement?" For example, is he correct to consider allowing diversity will encourage people to discover better means of living, ones that will induce them to be successful? Mill thinks individuals pick up from their and others’ mistakes, so that diversification will add to the recognition of what is desirable. But in the time since Mill wrote, we can propose that there has been greater diversity—the progress of pluralistic societies—but no considerable development in happiness or healthy living. Is individuality in the sense of pursuing our own good in our own practice such a wonderful quality? Or would families be happier with substantial social instruction on how to get
Through the drug addict, the notion, utility and freedom can contradict, is seen. If society dissuades someone from trying an addictive drug, e.g. opioids, society subsidizes further to their utility (and the collective utility) than if society lets them seek the drug. This is no objection since Mill does not set forth collective utility and individual freedom never …show more content…
with the opponents of improvement; but the only unfailing and permanent source of improvement is liberty since by it there are as many... independent centers of improvement as there are individuals.
If readers think Mill’s appeal to utility is what is best in this or that individual instance, we misread him. It is what gives to utility that appeals to him. Preventing someone from having an addictive drug is one case of stopping individuals from taking part in acts that can threaten their health; do we need to do this? Utility, for Mill, appeals to our concerns as progressive beings. This means our learning—and an exceptional source of learning is mistakes.
But is Mill right that liberty is a "source of improvement?" For example, is he correct to consider allowing diversity will encourage people to discover better means of living, ones that will induce them to be successful? Mill thinks individuals pick up from their and others’ mistakes, so that diversification will add to the recognition of what is desirable. But in the time since Mill wrote, we can propose that there has been greater diversity—the progress of pluralistic societies—but no considerable development in happiness or healthy living. Is individuality in the sense of pursuing our own good in our own practice such a wonderful quality? Or would families be happier with substantial social instruction on how to get