Mills as an Ethical Confrontation
John S. Mill’s purpose in writing On Liberty was to better define the boundary separating individual freedom and social regulation. People often have varying opinions about whether or not he is right. As detailed as Mill tried to be there are some weaknesses in his principle; however, his strengths outweigh his weaknesses. No thought is “fool proof,” no matter how much time a person takes formulating it. The same went for Mill’s harm principle. The difference in the flaws with his argument and other people’s flaws, is that is was not his fault. God made each person different, both physically and mentally. We are all affected by things differently, based on our religion, ethnic background, parents, friends, and intelligence, just to name a few. There are an infinite amount of things that makes everyone different. For this reason, it is not Mill’s fault that social harm will never be able to have an all-inclusive definition. There will never be an agreement on social harm, because it
Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement is just one example. Both of these examples show how toleration was accepted and how when social harm was so great we prohibited those actions. It is evident that Mill’s harm principle is the most effective way to define the boundary between individual rights and social rights. Although this flaw makes the distinct line he is trying to draw impossible to do, he is still very close. This enables our society to progress and evolve. ------------------------------------------------------------------------**Bibliography**. History shows us cases when tyranny of the majority occurred; however, every time the majority tried closing down the “market place of ideas,” history also shows that it has never been successful. This is the reason why tyranny of the majority would never last. The only worry that might be evident is that in two of the three previous examples, violence was the liberating fact!or; however, it was not the first method of liberation, but the last. We intrinsically want to better our society and ourselves. No matter whether or not it was religious freedom, freethinking, or political freedom individuality has stood the test of time. This was a case where the minority was having their rights violated. As long as our society does not become stifled and we do not wallow in out greatness, we will never cease to move forward. Mill’s talks about how majorities trample individuality. King was a free thinker who elevated the thoughts of an ethnic group and eventually a country.
Common topics in this essay:
John Mill’s,
Egypt Newton,
Senator McCarthy,
Dr King,
Rights Movement,
social harm,
harm principle,
mill’s harm principle,
tyranny majority,
mill’s harm,
Red Scare,
rights movement,
mill’s argument,
define boundary,
|
Acceptance Essays
