Mill Place Any Limits on Term Paper

Excerpt from Term Paper :



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."

Still others try to rebuff these objections, clarifying self-regarding acts and other-regarding acts.

J.C. Rees is at the helm of the counter-movement of interpretations, arguing that there is a distinguishable difference between actions that affect others and those that affect others' interests; he purports that it is the protection of other's interests to which Mill meant for liberty's limitation. Rees constructs a relativistic, conservative interpretation of liberty, in which the emphasis is placed on distinguishing interests from 'arbitrary wishes, fleeting fancies, and capricious demands." In his protection of the "permanent interests of man as a progressive being," Mill demands that the limitations of liberty extend to the interference of the protection of another citizen's own right to liberty.

The freedom of choice extended by Mill is aimed to protect the "permanent interests of a man as a progressive being," as expressed in both Utilitarianism and On Liberty. While Redhead and Monk contend differently as to the physical boundaries placed on liberty in practice, they both agree that Mill sacredly regards the security of man the individual man as the least dispensable of all interests. Viewing man as a progressive being, he speaks of the role of society to engulf the man not through an unalterable natural environment, but instead as the manifestation of choices and experiments inflicted upon the individual self and the group. This choice-environment protected higher pleasure as an indispensable condition of the happiness afforded by individual liberty. Nevertheless, his libertarian approach extended only as far as his utilitarianism protected the right to happiness preserved by others.

While largely criticizing them, laissez-fair capitalism and economic systems played an important role in the construction of further limits presented in On Liberty. With the nature of a classical economist, he accepted a world in which natural resources were not limitless and, Gray argues, posed harm in their manipulation to the larger social values of the group as well as the characters of the individual. A source of harm, economies must be limited, as the tyranny of the state and the abduction of the mass. While Mill's followers and scholars unanimously agree that the political scientist allowed for a vision of liberty largely untouched, he provided several limitations with one conclusive foundation: Liberty of one may only be limited when the liberty of others is threatened.

Boulton, Clark W. "John Stuart Mill: On Liberty and History." The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 3. (Sep., 1965)

Brown, Donald G. " Mill on Liberty and Morality." Philosophical Review. Vol 81. (1972)

Gray, John. John Stuart Mill: Traditional and Revisionist Interpretations. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Humane Studies, 1982.

Hampsher-Mark, Iaian. A History of Modern Political Thought: Major Political Thinkers from Hobbes to Marx. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1992.

Radcliff, Peter. Limits of Liberty. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1966.

Redhead, Brian. Political Thought from Plato to NATO. London: British Broadcasting Corp., 1984.

Rees, John C. "A Re-reading of Mill on Liberty." Political Studies. Vol. 8. (1960)

Rees, John C. "The Thesis of the 'Two Mills.'" Political Studies. Vol. 25. (1977)

Stephens, Fitzjames. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. R.J. White, Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967.

Boulton, Clark W. "John Stuart Mill: On Liberty and History." The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 3. (Sep., 1965) p. 569.

Gray, John. "The Revisionist View of Mill on Liberty, Morality, and Utility." John Stuart Mill: Traditional and Revisionist Interpretations. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Humane Studies, 1982.

Gray, "The Utility Principle, the Art of Life, and the Theory of Morality."

Brown, Donald G. " Mill on Liberty and Morality." Philosophical Review. Vol 81. (1972) p. 136.

Stephens, Fitzjames. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. R.J. White, Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. p. 28.

Rees, John C. "A Re-reading of Mill on Liberty." Political Studies. Vol. 8. (1960), also Ibid, "Was Mill for Liberty?" Political…

Sources Used in Document:

Stephens, Fitzjames. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. R.J. White, Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. p. 28.

Rees, John C. "A Re-reading of Mill on Liberty." Political Studies. Vol. 8. (1960), also Ibid, "Was Mill for Liberty?" Political Studies. Vol. 14. (1966) and "The Thesis of the 'Two Mills.'" Political Studies. Vol. 25. (1977)

Rees in Radcliff, Peter. Limits of Liberty. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1966. p, 101.

Cite This Term Paper:

"Mill Place Any Limits On" (2005, August 18) Retrieved July 20, 2019, from
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/mill-place-any-limits-on-68264

"Mill Place Any Limits On" 18 August 2005. Web.20 July. 2019. <
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/mill-place-any-limits-on-68264>

"Mill Place Any Limits On", 18 August 2005, Accessed.20 July. 2019,
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/mill-place-any-limits-on-68264