John Stuart Mills Theories On Liberty

John Stuart heros Theories On LibertyJohn Stuart Mill was matchless of the foremost liberal theorists of the nineteenth century, binding modern and classical liberalism in his ideas. His exoneration of liberty however, has been greatly contested by traditionalist views but alike highly defended by revisionist views as result be examined in his paper On Liberty (1859). mill around belief in individualism through useful ethics appears contradictory and highly debated. His prostitutes regulation and his assumptions on human nature also submit to controversial views. On one hand, traditionalists condemn Mill as a highly inconsistent thinker and his work On Liberty very critical in itself, but on the other hand, revisionists see Mill as a consistent thinker who naturally refines and develops pre-existing liberal ideas.J.S. mill father, James Mill, was a strong utilitarian theorist1. His beliefs along with the utilitarianism flora of British philosopher Jeremy Bentham had a huge influence on J.S. Mill growing up2. In Mills essay On Liberty, we can examine how his defence of individualism with utilitarian contentions create critical views. Mill believes in the ethic of utilitarianism in that the state and individuals ought to be judged by their ability and action to promote the great happiness for the greatest number of people3, however as traditionalists see it, attaining the utmost social good involves forfeiting certain individuals and sacrificing their happiness4, because happiness of a majority is greater than the happiness of a few individuals. Thus, the rudiment of utilitarianism is in dispute with Mills beliefs in individuality and self-development.In On Liberty, Mill defends freedom of the individual against tyranny of the majority5where dominant groups, more so the dominance of public opinion, inhibits lesser individuals6. Mills objection to the majority of society excluding the minority contradicts his utilitarian ethic. 19th Century English cr itic James Fitzjames Stephen condemns Mills endeavour to defend individual liberty from a utilitarian viewpoint by arguing that, if the vestigial value for utilitarianism is to effectively enhance happiness of a society to the greatest extent, then a consistent utilitarian policy of social betterment will non be especially tender toward individual liberty7, the interest of the majority outweigh the rights of the individual minority. Stephen views that utilitarian principles pursues social welfare through curb opinions of more or less members of society8and that individualism cannot be viewed with a utilitarian ethic J.S. Mill attempts to do.On the other hand, revisionists plead that such traditionalist views are misinterpreted and that Mills contradictions with utilitarianism is a natural development of his utilitarian predecessors achievements9and his work not entirely incoherent. In Rem B. Edwards view, Mill is a minimizing utilitarian and that the principle of utility-grad e does not impose on individuals the clean obligation to maximize utility10, but focuses on happiness alone as the ultimate standard of value presidential term all human areas of practice.11In On Liberty, Mill regards utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of a man as a progressive being.12That is to say, Mills believes that utilitarianism is principle of the higher pleasures, and that freedom of choice, reflective perspective and active imagination is a vital ingredient to human happiness.13For Mill, diversity of opinion leads to positive social good, therefore overlooking the minority and silencing their opinions deprives the human race, posterity as well as the existing generation.14For revisionists, Mill as a utilitarian is not essentially inconsistent if he knowingly sacrifices some utility for the sake of a fair distribution of the utility that remains.15J.S. Mills notorious p rinciple of liberty, the harms principle has also been disputed by traditionalist and revisionist views. In chapter quadruple of On Liberty, Mill argues that peoples actions ought not to be as free as opinions and should be limited if they are a nuisance to other people16. He states that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.17Traditionalist criticizes Mills harm principle because Mill leaves room to suggest that it would be acceptable to limit liberty anytime if it could harm society in anyway. By making harm to others a legitimate reason for state interference, the legitimate powers of the state could extend and outweigh the need to value individuality.18Another traditionalist indictment against Mills principle of liberty is towards his account that actions should only be restricted if those actions are other-regarding and effect other people, and not if those actions a re self-regarding, which affect only the individual themselves and therefore should be exercised with absolute freedom19. The traditionalist criticize that we cannot clearly note between the two actions Mill propose, as it is inevitable that peoples actions affect others because people are not entirely secluded, therefore in theory any individual act can cause harm to others. As Fitzjames Stephen puts it, I think that the attempt to distinguish between self-regarding acts and acts which regard others, is like an attempt to distinguish between acts which happen in time and acts which happen in space. Every act happens at some time and in some place, and in like manner every act that we do either does or may affect both ourselves and others. I think, therefore, that the distinction (which, by the way, is not at all a common one) is altogether fallacious and unfounded.20In response to traditionalist criticism, revisionists attempt to clarify self-regarding acts and other-regarding ac ts. In J.C. Reeses essay, A Re-reading of Mill on Liberty, he distinguishes other-regarding actions to affect other peoples interests in their moral rights, that of liberty and security.21Therefore, the harm to others implied in On Liberty refers to the harm of an individuals moral interests, resulting in injustice towards the individual.22As such, revisionist argue that self-regarding actions can be clearly distinguished from other-regarding actions and support Mills harm principle in that actions can be restricted if they are injurious to the moral rights of security and liberty of other people.The significant notion about human nature Mill makes in On Liberty, is how people can best understand and learn about their own opinions and activities from accepting challenging and opposing opinions and arguing against them. One can only reliably understand their opinion by defending it.23This belief, based on the social utility of the individual is significantly disputed by traditionali sts who argue people may not be able to best understand their opinions and values from dissent. For example, people who have different vocabulary for discussing moral and political issues may simply argue past each other, rather than challenge opposing opinions and therefore a diversity of opinions may not be socially beneficiary as it cannot ontogeny utility, or happiness, which Mill defends as the essence of liberty.24Mills claim about the need for dissent in order to truly understand ones own opinions is herewith less convincing.It is easy to see how J.S. Mills defence of liberty is highly contentious in views. As explained in this essay, Mills prominent works such as On Liberty, gather traditionalist criticism as well as revisionist support. While traditionalists criticize Mills defence of liberty from a utilitarian ethic, revisionists encourage us to respect Mills work as a distinct process of developing liberalism. Mill refuses to accept fully the utilitarian principles famil ial from his father and Bentham, nor reject them for his belief in individual sovereignty25, but rather attempts to settle the two antagonistic viewpoints to defend liberty.