Mill Debate on LibertyEssay title: Mill Debate on LibertyMills debate on libertyPhilosophy 301Mills 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 individuals rights. The underlying greatest challenge to political philosophy according to Mills, 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.
• Mill Debate on Libertarians title: Mill Debate on Libertarian philosophy title: Mill debate on LibertariansPhilosophy 309Mills’s second idea is that libertarians shouldn’t be concerned about freedom because we have no right to be free. We should fight for what is best for society and our liberty. He says that we should do that right as an effort to improve society when we are in a poor condition but it doesn’t really matter much because the individual liberty is about the same as the freedom of the mass for the group to control everyone else. In fact if we lose that right we are essentially losing our liberty. In this respect that is what the Libertarian position is. The fundamental problem in libertarian philosophy has been to develop a system of liberty that guarantees the absolute freedom for every individual in our society. In his view the same is not true the way in which liberty has been set up. In other words libertarians believe if we really put every individual out of our society they will gain their right to live as they please like it. While I say that this issue is not only a matter of human rights for everybody but also of liberty what makes it so important and useful is that we take on the very different aspects of freedom that libertarian thought has always had. Liberty is a social contract which holds that no one possesses right but liberty and it cannot be denied. Freedom is about maintaining a state of peace or just the freedom to do what we want while respecting the fundamental rights of others. Liberty is always a social contract and all individual liberties have those issues that make them more than just personal freedom but political freedoms in general. Freedom is about living on your own rights while respecting human rights and the rights of other people as well. Liberty is about all lives to make sure they enjoy every life. There is a philosophical difference between democracy and capitalism. Free markets are a democratic system so the individuals and businesses that participate in it (for example the workers) must not choose to participate in it. These markets are the only ones which allow the individual to have the freedom to choose or the freedom to run his businesses and he can’t have any other choice but to run his own businesses in the free market he owns. There is a major divide in the ideas on how democracy works so these two debates have no common denominator and have different solutions and different views, but we are all better off when we respect each other so we are all citizens. As Mill has done this has been a huge success in understanding how people value being the owner of a common happiness that has never been in the original state of being. We live this way because if one person believes in liberty then he can buy a piece of property and you can have freedom because both have the same things. The people at work have to keep running their businesses and you have to think outside the box. The people that own businesses and control the means of production can’t have the same freedoms and not only are they unable to have the freedom that the people of this country have you don’t want to get back into a free world to enjoy all the benefits of an abundance of liberty and an abundance of liberty. The only thing libertarians believe in is personal freedom. Mill argued that we can live with any level of freedom because if the individual has to use his rights to their advantage then he must want to have them. Mill’s ideas are that you may not be able to escape from the tyranny of a system of oppression because as part of this it is your responsibility to maintain as much of your individuality as possible. He has been arguing for a long time that people are really better off with being more liberal if they want to use their personal power to support their society. He
Philosophy is not a political theory in and of itself. This is because most philosophers are a mixture of thinkers from the different philosophical traditions. There are, in turn, different views on which to draw the line on political philosophy. It is this that gives philosophy its unique name. Philosophy gives us all our ideas, some of which are political or philosophical, for free and others, sometimes political or philosophical. That is only because philosophy is what philosophers put into practice, often the best means by which an individual or group can bring those ideas to its attention and be satisfied with them. And so philosophy is what it claims to be, a political theory, something of the kind which is very much in the spirit of anarchism, socialism and other radical political movements, but it not necessarily in the sense most people would regard as a “real” political theory. Philosophy gives the idea of freedom of thought, liberty of the press, the rule of law and individual rights. And what was great about philosophy as it developed and how it evolved is that philosophy gave us every point of which could be said to be a political theory. Even though we know that one of the founders (George Austin Sanger) tried to define a political philosophy, political philosophy at that time was not just political or a political theory. In any event, philosophy as it developed is not just a theory — it is an epistemological system, a philosophical model. In the classical philosophy of morality, the only real philosophy of a moralist is political philosophy. In political philosophy, the only real philosophy of ethics is economic ethics with its own set of ethics. Since it is economic ethics that is at all important to some philosophers, it does not follow that the reason for its existence is to encourage others to pursue more moral views of the past. That is what Kant made the point of. Kant thought that the reason for this philosophy is that philosophy is a “political system” whereas economic ethics is a theory of human behaviour. It does not require any social ideology or ideological doctrines to guide morality. We can see that philosophical philosophy is to be seen as not only a humanistic doctrine, but a philosophical model, its own kind of system of ethics, and a collection of ethics which is just as important in its own way towards the goal it aims for. It is only when it is so important to the philosophy that there is a kind of ideological consistency and a feeling of commitment that the philosophy is worth pursuing for all. Philosophy is a philosophy of freedom to think without the control of the laws. Philosophy is a philosophy of liberty to think without the control of religion. Philosophers think that all good acts and all sins are done by virtue of it. Philosophy is about the realization of this unity on this level. It is a philosophy which will not allow the individual rights and beliefs or all those wrongs which are necessary to lead people to live their lives in the best way of their lives. It will always seek to avoid conflict and to be non-threatening to others at every turn, to treat others appropriately, to recognize disagreements without fear of a judgment or being wronged, to care for the well-being of individuals, to seek to create peace by means of freedom and equality, and to strive for equality for the happiness of all. Philosophy is no different since the very heart of that philosophy has to be this principle that there is power and that there is love. Philosophy is a way of coming to know oneself and that is what it is all about. Philosophers can go to great lengths and seek to reach it no matter what those efforts
Philosophy is not a political theory in and of itself. This is because most philosophers are a mixture of thinkers from the different philosophical traditions. There are, in turn, different views on which to draw the line on political philosophy. It is this that gives philosophy its unique name. Philosophy gives us all our ideas, some of which are political or philosophical, for free and others, sometimes political or philosophical. That is only because philosophy is what philosophers put into practice, often the best means by which an individual or group can bring those ideas to its attention and be satisfied with them. And so philosophy is what it claims to be, a political theory, something of the kind which is very much in the spirit of anarchism, socialism and other radical political movements, but it not necessarily in the sense most people would regard as a “real” political theory. Philosophy gives the idea of freedom of thought, liberty of the press, the rule of law and individual rights. And what was great about philosophy as it developed and how it evolved is that philosophy gave us every point of which could be said to be a political theory. Even though we know that one of the founders (George Austin Sanger) tried to define a political philosophy, political philosophy at that time was not just political or a political theory. In any event, philosophy as it developed is not just a theory — it is an epistemological system, a philosophical model. In the classical philosophy of morality, the only real philosophy of a moralist is political philosophy. In political philosophy, the only real philosophy of ethics is economic ethics with its own set of ethics. Since it is economic ethics that is at all important to some philosophers, it does not follow that the reason for its existence is to encourage others to pursue more moral views of the past. That is what Kant made the point of. Kant thought that the reason for this philosophy is that philosophy is a “political system” whereas economic ethics is a theory of human behaviour. It does not require any social ideology or ideological doctrines to guide morality. We can see that philosophical philosophy is to be seen as not only a humanistic doctrine, but a philosophical model, its own kind of system of ethics, and a collection of ethics which is just as important in its own way towards the goal it aims for. It is only when it is so important to the philosophy that there is a kind of ideological consistency and a feeling of commitment that the philosophy is worth pursuing for all. Philosophy is a philosophy of freedom to think without the control of the laws. Philosophy is a philosophy of liberty to think without the control of religion. Philosophers think that all good acts and all sins are done by virtue of it. Philosophy is about the realization of this unity on this level. It is a philosophy which will not allow the individual rights and beliefs or all those wrongs which are necessary to lead people to live their lives in the best way of their lives. It will always seek to avoid conflict and to be non-threatening to others at every turn, to treat others appropriately, to recognize disagreements without fear of a judgment or being wronged, to care for the well-being of individuals, to seek to create peace by means of freedom and equality, and to strive for equality for the happiness of all. Philosophy is no different since the very heart of that philosophy has to be this principle that there is power and that there is love. Philosophy is a way of coming to know oneself and that is what it is all about. Philosophers can go to great lengths and seek to reach it no matter what those efforts
Philosophy is not a political theory in and of itself. This is because most philosophers are a mixture of thinkers from the different philosophical traditions. There are, in turn, different views on which to draw the line on political philosophy. It is this that gives philosophy its unique name. Philosophy gives us all our ideas, some of which are political or philosophical, for free and others, sometimes political or philosophical. That is only because philosophy is what philosophers put into practice, often the best means by which an individual or group can bring those ideas to its attention and be satisfied with them. And so philosophy is what it claims to be, a political theory, something of the kind which is very much in the spirit of anarchism, socialism and other radical political movements, but it not necessarily in the sense most people would regard as a “real” political theory. Philosophy gives the idea of freedom of thought, liberty of the press, the rule of law and individual rights. And what was great about philosophy as it developed and how it evolved is that philosophy gave us every point of which could be said to be a political theory. Even though we know that one of the founders (George Austin Sanger) tried to define a political philosophy, political philosophy at that time was not just political or a political theory. In any event, philosophy as it developed is not just a theory — it is an epistemological system, a philosophical model. In the classical philosophy of morality, the only real philosophy of a moralist is political philosophy. In political philosophy, the only real philosophy of ethics is economic ethics with its own set of ethics. Since it is economic ethics that is at all important to some philosophers, it does not follow that the reason for its existence is to encourage others to pursue more moral views of the past. That is what Kant made the point of. Kant thought that the reason for this philosophy is that philosophy is a “political system” whereas economic ethics is a theory of human behaviour. It does not require any social ideology or ideological doctrines to guide morality. We can see that philosophical philosophy is to be seen as not only a humanistic doctrine, but a philosophical model, its own kind of system of ethics, and a collection of ethics which is just as important in its own way towards the goal it aims for. It is only when it is so important to the philosophy that there is a kind of ideological consistency and a feeling of commitment that the philosophy is worth pursuing for all. Philosophy is a philosophy of freedom to think without the control of the laws. Philosophy is a philosophy of liberty to think without the control of religion. Philosophers think that all good acts and all sins are done by virtue of it. Philosophy is about the realization of this unity on this level. It is a philosophy which will not allow the individual rights and beliefs or all those wrongs which are necessary to lead people to live their lives in the best way of their lives. It will always seek to avoid conflict and to be non-threatening to others at every turn, to treat others appropriately, to recognize disagreements without fear of a judgment or being wronged, to care for the well-being of individuals, to seek to create peace by means of freedom and equality, and to strive for equality for the happiness of all. Philosophy is no different since the very heart of that philosophy has to be this principle that there is power and that there is love. Philosophy is a way of coming to know oneself and that is what it is all about. Philosophers can go to great lengths and seek to reach it no matter what those efforts
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 everyones 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 doesnt 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
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
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 whos 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.