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.
or, as Mill more eloquently puts it, "it is necessary to preserve the soil in which they [geniuses] grow. Genius can only breathe freely in an atmosphere of freedom...If from timidity they consent to be forced into one of these moulds [of conformity]...society will be little the better for their genius" (on Liberty, 9). Mill uses the extreme example of genius to illustrate the general principle he has devoted this entire book to; namely, that individual liberty is essential for the progress of a society. In this particular facet of his argument, he uses the archetypal vision of the genius to add a concrete incarnation of what otherwise might be an abstract and abstruse concept. Instead, Mill's view of liberty is rendered strikingly clear by his use of logic...
All of this argument, though, is really just an expansion and explanation of his basic harm principle, still the most succinct yet complete definition of liberty available.
There is a reason that Mill's on Liberty is one of the most referred-to texts in libertarian and anti-libertarian thought. Mill's simple eloquence of language and elegance of thought makes this essay at once incredibly profound and eminently accessible. His basic argument could be summed up in one sentence: "Liberty, the ideal state for human beings, consist of doing what you will without harming others." The remainder of this volume is aimed at demonstrating the truth and benefits of this "harm principle," and through a few basic premises and a careful application of logic, Mill is hugely successful in this aim.
Mills Arguements Intrinsic Value of Liberty There can be very few doubts as to the importance of liberty to the philosophical espousing of John Stuart Mill, who even authored a treatise entitled On Liberty to underscore the amount of emphasis he placed on this particular concept. What is most interesting about the many different notions the author has in relation to freedom is the circumscriptions that are routinely placed upon it in
Mill, Kant, And Torture An Analysis of the Utilitarian and Kantian Arguments for and against Torture Alan Dershowitz expresses moral approval (with reservations) in his essay "Should the Ticking Time Bomb Terrorist be Tortured?" Dershowitz's argument is essentially that of a Utilitarian. But it also contains elements of Kantianism. While a Kantian, however, could argue against the moral correctness of torture, Dershowitz steers the argument away from a Kantian perusal of the
For him, it is also important to know that liberty, while dependent on the individual's decision alone, should also take into account the consequences that will come out upon the accomplishment of an action. That is, it is vital that the individual think of the 'bigger picture': will the action benefit the common good, or will it benefit my personal interests only? Positive liberty, hence, becomes more vital when
Mill talked of ethical freedom in terms of all areas wherein individual and society interacts and become involved with each other; Marx utilized the same viewpoint, although specified it in terms of proletarian-bourgeoisie relations. For Marx, ethical freedom is self-realization within the individual, and primary in this realization was the acknowledgment that one needs to be economically independent in order for modern individuals, and society in general, to function progressively.
Individual Development Plan The origin of the term emotional intelligence is from a book by Daniel Goleman in 1995 and this book has made it one of the hottest subjects to be discussed in corporate America. This led to an article in the Harvard Business Review two years ago, and that attracted more readers than all articles published in the magazine during the last 40 years. This had such an effect
Do you consider Utilitarianism to be the way we ought to determine right and wrong? Why or why not? I disagree with Utilitariasnim as moral instrument on the grounds that Utilitarianism may, paradoxically, be harmful in that it focuses on the influence of pleasure or pain to the greatest amount of people. In that way, it strikes me as being an incomplete measure for ethics, since (using a hypothetical situation) the