Mill's On Liberty example essay topic

Analysis & Critique of. S. Mill's On Liberty The perception of liberty has been an issue that has bewildered the human race for a long time. It seems with every aspiring leader comes a new definition of liberty, some more realistic than others. We have seen, though, that some tend to have a grasp of what true liberty is. One of these scholars was the English philosopher and economist J.S. Mill. Mill's On Liberty provided a great example of what, in his opinion, liberty is and how it is to be protected. In this essay we will examine Mill's ideals concerning liberty and point out a few things he may not have been realistic about.

For Mill, liberty is defined by, 'the nature and limits of the power of which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual. ' Mill's stance is that society can step in only when the action of the individual causes harm to others. Interference for any other reason is unwarranted and only hinders the development of society as a whole. When these liberties are preserved the end result is freedom, and true freedom, according to Mill, is pursuing one's own good in which ever way they deem fit, so long as it doesn't bring harm to others.

And here in lies the problem, It is human nature to believe that you are right and the other is wrong. This concept, which seems to be hard wired into all of us, leads to the disapproval, which leads to anger, which in turn leads to suppression. This is the one thing that must be avoided. Across history there are examples of government, or society, stifling the voice of opposition. Though we may think we are right, that doesn't give us the right to keep others from expressing their own opinions and ideas. To take away an individual's ability to think and feel for itself is to rob them of the greatest part of being alive.

Along with that you are robbing yourself of the knowledge that they posses, which is retarding your growth as a person. According to Mill, we dare not quiet the voice of opposition for there is a good chance that that voice is correct. The truths of life are an ever evolving concept. Things that were thought to be true have falling time and time again, and if we are honestly trying to find out these truths we must listen and argue every opinion in search of them. It is our duty to question those in power, both ideas and people, and to the duty of those in power to respect, hear, and argue with the questions. Not to silence them in favor of having no opposition.

All that is accomplished by this is the handicapping of society, for it is true in every aspect of life that the only way to improve is to go against opposition and to learn from it. Along these lines it would make sense that the most important ideas out there are the unpopular ones because these are the issues that are being neglected. The protection of this 'individuality' poses a problem. What causes harm and what ultimately leads to good? When should government step in and when should it let things be? Knowing where that line is tough.

Mill's answer to this is that society has jurisdiction over every aspect of behavior that, 'affects pre judicially the interests of others. ' More specifically society has no interest in the aspects of one's life that affect only the individual acting, or others, for that matter, that are affect at their own consent. Society has no right to keep a person from doing with his life what they wish, and it is stupid to do so their own good for nobody will every truly know what someone else aspires to do. Though Mill rejects the concept of the social contract he does believe that people do have obligations to the society in exchange for the protection of their freedom. And if one acts in a manner that harms the society as a whole then they are subject to punishment. Not for their opinion, or lifestyle, but for the specific action that harms the society.

Now if that person indirectly affects the well-being of the society then it is not just to punish the person. For the society has the first twenty years of an individual's life to mold and shape their perception of life and if after that they still choose a self-destructive lifestyle then so be it. If compared to John Locke's view of government we see some similarities and some differences. The most basic is the foundation of each man's philosophy.

John Locke's ideals are based in the Laws of Nature, people take what they need and are able to defend themselves against those who violate these laws. Mill's is fueled strictly by what is best for society and humanity. His views about the individual and their liberty are as such because he believes that the expression of unpopular ideas will only expand the collective knowledge of humanity. Locke has a much more detailed idea of what his government would be structured like, with the three branches and currency. Mill has more of an ideal that he would like to project onto a society. Both believe a government's priority is to protect the freedom of its citizens, and if it does not accomplish this then it is the populations duty to relieve it of its power.

I myself agree with a lot of what Mill says. We do need to let people express themselves even when what they say and do angers us. For what we say and do my anger them just the same, and no one would like to be silenced. Tolerance is a virtue that we all need in our everyday lives. But the problem is implementing this into a society that preaches free speech, but doesn't always back it up.

People here don't want to hear those who oppose. Though we don't directly stifle their voice, we don't take the time to hear what they have to say. Now isn't that in the same ballpark as suppressing someone's ideas, not taking the time to hear the ideas and to form educated opinions of them. 'If a tree fall in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?' Wouldn't that same thing apply to someone talking and nobody listening?