Nietzsche And Mill 's Ideas Of Freedom

Mill claims that his purpose in writing on liberty is to assert what he describes one very simple principle. The principle that ought to govern society and that principle has come to be known as the harm principle. The individuals own good either physical or moral is not a sufficient warrant for societal intervention. The individual cannot rightfully be compelled to do or not to do because it will be better for him to do so because it is better for him to do so because it will make him happier.

He states that when values are in the employ of a slave strategy, then distancing oneself from them allows greater freedom of the will. He argues for maintaining distance from conventional values as crucial for freedom. This connects to Mill, who agrees with the idea that one should not have to conform to a singular, universal viewpoint, and would likely view Nietzsche’s argument itself as helpful for individual freedom. Mill only limits the extent to which Nietzsche could act on his own invented morality as it impinges on the rights of others. In fact, Mill would likely argue that Nietzsche’s creative thinking, even his argument against utility, is crucial for individuality and freedom. By being a nonconformist, Nietzsche brings originality to the world and makes people have to rethink their perspectives.

Mill has an “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” standpoint. If a person commits a terrible crime, they are nowhere near reaching a desirable end, nor do they have capacity to be virtuous, as Aristotle would say. If somebody is guilty of murder, then life in jail is too mild of a punishment for the crime he committed. It goes the other way around too. If somebody is guilty of theft, then life in jail may be too hard of a punishment for that particular crime. Mill believes the only efficient punishment is one that is exactly equal to the crime. He doesn’t think a murderer should be allowed to live on with the potential to murder again. Another thing Mill focuses on is general responses among a society. He believes the only way to find desirable pleasure is to ask people and get a general response. So if you asked the family of a murder victim what they would like to see happen to the murderer, a probable general response would be to have him sentenced to death as well, and that is exactly what should happen.

Society is built and run on social and moral obligations and while these two are closely related, both impact cultures around the world in different ways. Marx’s Communist Manifesto and Mill’s On Liberty demonstrate the relationship these obligations have with successful and unsuccessful social constructs. For the purposes of this paper, a moral obligation is a consideration of what is right¬¬¬ and wrong and can vary depending on pressures from external sources such as religion, while a social obligation is a responsibility the individual has to act to benefit the best interests of their class as well as supporting the stability between society and the individual. Marx and Mill differ greatly in their opinions on the role and effects of

Within Mill's 'On Liberty' it is clear that he has a high regard for the issues surrounding freedom and it's limits. Mill is an advocate of negative freedom, as a liberal he believes that there should be no restraints on an individual's freedom unless it is hindering the freedom or health of another person. One of the main reasons as to why Mill values liberty is because it contributes to personal development. Thus Mill argues that in order for individuals to develop they should be able to perform 'experiments' in living', which allow individuals to go through a system of trial and error until they find their own

power to alter the exchange as it sees fit. If this function of the state is

In his work On Liberty, Mill placed much emphasis on individual liberty and its vital role in political society. To Mill, this phrase may be defined as the liberty of the individual to be the final judge over his actions; to decide what is right and wrong and to act upon that standard. On a secondary level, it also implies one's freedom to pursue one's own individuality. Mill believed in a society in which each individual leads his own distinctive life according to his own unique talents; unfettered by regulations upon thought, opinion, actions etc.

In his second essay of the Geneaology of Morals, Nietzsche attempts to identify and explain the origin of the conscience. He does not adopt the view of the conscience that is accepted by the “English Psychologists”, such as Bentham, J. Mill, J.S. Mill and Hume, as the result of an innate moral feeling. Rather, it is his belief that the moral content of our conscience is formed during childhood under the influence of society. Nietzsche defines the conscience as an introspective phenomenon brought about by a feeling of responsibility, in which one analyzes their own morality due to the internalization of the values of society. This definition holds the position that the conscience is not something innate to

John Stuart Mill, an English philosopher and a political economist, had an important part in forming liberal thought in the 19th century. Mill published his best-known work, _On Liberty,_ in 1859. This foundational book discusses the concept of liberty. It talks about the nature and the limits of the power performed by society over an individual. The book also deals with the freedom of people to engage in whatever they wish as long as it does not harm other persons.

Mill concerns his principle of individuality with the idea that each person should be allowed to develop his own ideas and frameworks in which he lives, as long as he acts in a civilized manner, contends no harm to others, and is capable of creating such opinions. Mill describes this notion by stating that, “… the object “toward which every human being must ceaselessly direct his efforts… is the individuality of power and development”; that for and that from the union of these arise “individual rigor and manifold diversity” which combine themselves in “originality”” (Mill 55). Contradictory to the evolutionary ideals of Wilson, Mill stresses the notion

Mill is extremely clear as to why the individual should be sovereign over his or her body and mind—to counter the effects of a possible "tyranny of the majority." Mill states, "It (the majority) practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself" (63).

Inhibition of one's liberty, such as their liberty of conscience (i.e. freedom of speech), is unjust by Millian principles, unless the person's use of deliberation is to voice hate speech. So what is hate speech? Hate speech is directed towards a member of a group, or the group as a whole, that vilifies on the basis of the subject's beliefs. In comparison to discriminatory speech, hate speech does not invoke mere offense, but in most cases is traumatic, and severely impair one’s deliberative capacities, or their mental faculties (judgment, moral preference, intuition, etc…). Liberties have been established to protect our deliberative abilities, as these are conducive to achieving happiness, which to Mill is the individual's primary goal. So why should we regulate hate speech? Although it is important to allow people's freedom of expression, as this is conducive to promoting one's individuality, hate speech can stigmatize one's character, and for this reason hate speech is not always morally, or legally permissible. To better understand hate speech's importance, I will describe Mill's argument in favor of prohibiting hate speech, following this I will object to Mill's rejection of hate speech, finally, I will show why hate speech should be regulated, and why allowing it is dangerous to humans, and society as a whole. Freedom of expression is imperative for improving one’s character, but not all forms of opinions', such as hate speech, should have full freedom to be

     Freedom of individuality is seen as the essential form of freedom according to Mill. The freedom of thought and speech, discussed in Chapter 2, do play a pivotal role in ensuring freedom, however, they are viewed more as a means to an end rather than being something that should be pursued for its own good. The freedom of individuality is essential for human progress and development and “it is only the cultivation of individuality which produces, or can produce, well-developed human beings” (Mill 70). It is this stressed importance on the importance of

In On Liberty (1859), John Stuart Mill was a strong believer of freedom of speech. He identifies the Harm principle to protect the freedom of thought and expression. He argues that people should not be silenced for expressing their opinion or how they feel based on their beliefs. He declares four vaguely arguments and makes several examples as to why freedom of speech is a very important aspect to society. In this paper, I argue that Mill is correct in declaring that we have the right to express our opinions as long as it does not bring harm to others. First, I will define how Mill uses the harm principle to declare his argument and the four distinct reasons for freedom of opinion and the expression of opinion. Secondly, I will declare my viewpoint based on why I agree with the harm principle as well as Mill’s argument following that we have a right to freedom of expression.

In his essay, Mill explores the two dimensions to liberty; individual and social. Carefully he analyzes the variance between the individual and social sphere through freedom of expression, more specifically, freedom of speech. Throughout the novel, he expresses that