A time, however, came in the progress of human affairs, when men ceased to think it a necessity of nature that their governors should be an independent power, opposed in interest to themselves. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. 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.
The question must remain whether there are equally good non-naturalistic ways of thinking about the world and our place within it. However, Mill still prefers a policy of society minding its own business. Over himself, over his body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
This all but universal illusion is one of the examples of the magical influence of custom, which is not only, as the proverb says a second nature, but is continually mistaken for the first.
Thirdly, from this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals; freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others: And the theories with which they are laden, of course, will vary with social setting.
For example, if a scientist discovered a comet about to kill the planet in a matter of weeks, it may cause more happiness to suppress the truth than to allow society to discover the impending danger. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.
Mill offers two answers to this question. Such premises—that, for instance, we can draw a straight line connecting any two single points—are not mere verbal propositions. On Liberty Mill's On Liberty addresses the nature and limits of the power that can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual.
But though this proposition is not likely to be contested in general terms, the practical question, where to place the limit — how to make the fitting adjustment between individual independence and social control — is a subject on which nearly everything remains to be done.
He states that "Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians". The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it; and a State which postpones the interests of their mental expansion and elevation to a little more of administrative skill, or of that semblance of it which practice gives, in the details of business; a State which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes—will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish.
His argument for the claim, however, has become infamous. There has been very little consensus among nations about the answer to this question, and people tend to be very complacent about their own customs in dealing with dissent.
Such was the basis for a telling historico-normative debate between Whewell and Mill—the former arguing that scientific reasoning had and should involve the creative a priori development of concepts prior to the discovery of laws, the latter claiming, as can be seen in the quote above, that observation and induction alone could track facts about the world and elicit the concepts used in science Snyder If, therefore, we speak of the Mind as a series of feelings, we are obliged to complete the statement by calling it a series of feelings which is aware of itself as past and future; and we are reduced to the alternative of believing that the Mind, or Ego, is something different from any series of feelings, or possibilities of them, or of accepting the paradox, that something which ex hypothesi is but a series of feelings, can be aware of itself as a series.
If any one does an act hurtful to others, there is a prima facie case for punishing him, by law, or, where legal penalties are not safely applicable, by general disapprobation.
He states that they should enforce mandatory education through minor fines and annual standardised testing that tested only uncontroversial fact. Mill does, however, recognise one limit to consent: Mill adopts a Humean account of such laws as regularities: The struggle between Liberty and Authority is the most conspicuous feature in the portions of history with which we are earliest familiar, particularly in that of Greece, Rome, and England.
On Liberty study guide contains a biography of John Stuart Mill, literature essays, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis.
About On Liberty On Liberty Summary.
A Critique of John Stuart Mills essay On Liberty () On Liberty ï by John Stuart Mill is one of the cornerstones for discussion over the.
On Liberty Questions and Answers.
The Question and Answer section for On Liberty is a great resource to ask questions, find answers, and discuss the novel. His essay tries to show the positive effects of liberty on all people and on society as a whole. In particular, Mill links liberty to the ability to progress and to avoid social stagnation.
Liberty of opinion is valuable for two main reasons. John Stuart Mill’s Ideas on Free Speech Illustrated Heterodox Academy has produced a new book based on John Stuart Mill’s famous essay On Liberty to make it accessible for the 21st century.
Here’s what makes our edition special. John Stuart Mill (–73) was the most influential English language philosopher of the nineteenth century.
He was a naturalist, a utilitarian, and a liberal, whose work explores the consequences of a thoroughgoing empiricist outlook.Js mills on liberty essay