Mill Debate on Liberty

1

Mills debate on liberty

Philosophy 301

Mills has two very different theories on how political philosophy should be organized. First is his Utilitarianism view which is that a society will do what is better for the majority of people to make them happiest. Mills next concept is liberty is based on the rights every individual has to pursue his own view of happiness. According to Mills the only time individual rights can be restricted by a government is when he is harming another individual's rights. The underlying greatest challenge to political philosophy according to Mill's, is where we distinguish the line between harm of the individual and restriction of their civil liberties. This has always been a challenging question because either way you look at it someone is losing either their rights or is allowed to be harmed for the greater good of society.

Having these liberties is what is defined as freedom. Freedom is pursing your own good in your own way. Mills idea is to live well to yourself rather than forcing your idea of what is good upon someone else. I think that Mills is absolutely right in booth of these ideas I believe that everyone's most valuable right as a citizen is the right to freedom. I also agree with his point that you should follow your own notion of freedom first. Concentrate on what you are doing with your life instead of worrying about others. Event though you may feel very strongly that you way of life is the best way of life, it doesn't matter because everyone is entitled to their own version of freedom.

Mills states that "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilization community against his will is to prevent the

2

harm of others."(Mills 880) Mills suggest that we as individual have the right to harm our selves if we want to but we cannot harm another individual. I agree with mills this because, it is your life and if you feel happy doing something that harms you then there is not anything wrong with that. The question then lies in where we draw the line who decided when someone hurting themselves is harming other enough to violate their right to what they believe to be happiness. For example the heroin addict he is living in his idea off happiness but, he is hurting his family and society by not fo-filling their expectations. So should we take away is right to persuade happiness in is own way. I think that liberties can not be violated to control harm because once we allow are basic liberties to violated then we have lost freedom. Sometimes people need to go though certain aspects of harm in life to develop good character.

This is a very tricky subject because you are letting people harm themselves or other which violate the harm principle but if we restrict civil liberties then we lost the freedom. Either way you look at it someone has to loss. If you let a government make value judgments on liberty then you are going back to the style of government which you had before the idea of liberty which was a tyranny.

Mills says that people have a moral obligation to protect other liberties as well as their own. If an individual chooses to ignore warnings of self harm then the society will

not act to prevent him from further harming himself. I think that we defiantly do have an obligation to talk to a person if we see them harming themselves. But to step in and stop them is wrong because you are taking away their liberty to freedom. If a society acted then it would be more evil because, it would violate their basic liberty and pursuit of their

3

own happiness. According to mills freedom is our own concept of what is good and it is your right to follow that.

The question then is do we have a larger responsibility besides making our selves happy to society. Mils says that" It is indisputable that the being who's capacity for enjoyment is low, then has the greatest chance of being full satisfied" (Mills939) Mills goes on to say" It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied then a fool satisfied" (Mills939) Mills clearly is stating that there is a difference in value to society to someone who only looks out for himself then someone concerned with the helping other people as well as himself. Since everyone has the right to freedom what they them do with it is up to them. If you choose to live our life in a way that only befits yourself that is your right. I think it is wrong to judge people based on that. If their happy where there at then, who I am I to say that their fool. In an organized society we need people of all kinds to balance out each other we need the fool. Mills explain that happiness can be lived without for any number of reasons. "This self-scarce must be to some end to it not its own end if we are told that we are told that its end is not happiness but virtue which is better?" (Mills942) This is backing up his point that it is better to live in consideration for other then to live solely in consideration of ones self. To give upon your happiness to mills is the ultimate sacrifice this is higherest virtue to found in man. It is the ultimate virtue to give up your happiness for other but, it is also your right not to do so and I don't believe that make you of any less valuable to society.

Next mills explains that "Men loss their aspirations as they intelligent tastes, because they have not time or opportunity for indulgencing