Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Unfortunately, we have had no more success at finding that limit than Mill did, for what we see all around us today is that very same "political despotism" of which Mill speaks with trepidation. Mill writes that it is the "majority" who makes "the ways of mankind" (102-3), but his notion of "majority rule" appears to be based on the assumption that political despotism has not been enshrined. Majority rule would, in Mill's unadulterated view, affect the world democracies by forming the ways of the people within those democracies -- guiding them toward "harmonious development of his powers to a complete and consistent whole" (103). Again, the vision is extremely Romantic, for it does not take into account the disharmony found in the very heart of man, as someone like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn would say (after experiencing the horrors of societal collapse in Soviet Russia).
"Majority rule," therefore, does not seem as possible today as it did perhaps in Mill's...
In our own land of supposed democracy and majority rule, the majority fails to even vote. The majority, in other words, has preferred to see itself be led by a faction, a political despot, a totalitarian state. Yet, could that be because the majority has failed to feel itself the real director of its course ever since, for example, the assassination of Kennedy, and the fear that the military-industrial complex had performed a coup? It is possible. For this reason, while one might like to apply Mill's ideas to American society, he must realize that American society is in need of much stronger medicine. It needs a realistic solution to a real problem of tyranny -- not a Romantic vision that fails to realize that man himself needs more than a mere Constitution to guide him in the right: he needs grace, of the old world variety.
Works Cited
Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. London: John W. Parker and Son, West Strand, 1859.
Print.
Works Cited
Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. London: John W. Parker and Son, West Strand, 1859.
Print.
John Stuart Mill's concept of liberty professes to be liberal but ends up with a distinctly 'non-liberal' feel when analysing the details. This paper endeavours to define exactly what Mills' notion of liberty is and how it should be regulated by studying his book "On Liberty." The main discrepancies of his theory will be highlighted so as to demonstrate the apparent contradiction between his ideology and the examples he chooses
John Stuart Mill on Liberty In John Stuart Mill's brilliant 19th Century essay "On Liberty" he states that "the worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it." What Mills is purporting in that statement is that the State (the government) must not impede on the natural development of individual liberty. We are never to forget that we have inalienable rights for life and
E. herself very unhappy. Personal happiness should not be compromised for the sake of greater happiness of maximum number of people when the one person who would be most affected by your decision is you. I feel that Mill's concept is workable when rights of other people are involved. For example Katie would not be hurting anyone's rights by choosing to become a doctor. But lets consider another example. Larry
Political Philosophy II: Theories of Freedom John Stuart Mill's On Liberty is one of the foundational defenses of liberal, democratic government. According to Mill, there are certain core principles "that should regulate how governments and societies, whether democratic or not, can restrict individual liberties."[footnoteRef:1] Mill wrote that regardless of whether a monarch, dictator, or even a democratic majority governed, the only reason to deprive others of their liberties was what he
For Singer, the human community must receive justice, not simply a society setting its own local standards of morality and justice, as in Mill's argument. For Singer there are no 'imperfect' obligations, rather all obligations are absolute. Someone who merely does no harm to others, or extends help only to family members and his or her immediate community is committing a moral wrong. Even someone who is 'good' but
This is an example of how American politics and the American legal system have pre-empted any sort of social discussion or values creation, and the values creation came after the law was enacted. This is from a purely non-religious standpoint, as many religious people would argue the opposite. The argument against gay marriage, from the religious perspective, is precisely what Mill was trying to protect society against by making sure