Abstract
Nineteenth century British philosopher John Stuart Mill was the most important proponent of utilitarianism, a theory of morality for determining the rightness or wrongness of any action. This paper looks at Mill's 1863 book "Utilitarianism" in which he codified the principles of utilitarianism. The paper shows that Mill's principle of utility is helpful in distinguishing the rightness or wrongness of an action from the motives of the actor or agent. This principle of utility led Mill to support liberal feminism which he saw as morally right because allowing women the chance to make intellectual contributions to society promoted happiness for the greater number of people.

From the Paper
"People who sought to prohibit women from working may have had good motives, based on their religious beliefs or their fear of introducing social disorder. However, according to Mill, the result of these prohibitive actions was that society lost the potential contributions of educated women. Mill believed that the harm created by denying women's contributions to art and science far outweighed any potential good that resulted from maintaining the status quo. When judged by the principle of utility, the subjugation of women was thus a morally indefensible attitude that failed to promote the higher good. Despite their supposed good motives, people who fought against women's rights engaged in morally wrong actions."

Tags:Jeremy, Bentham, Subjugation, social, disorder

Abstract
This paper discusses how Tocqueville and Mill find common ground amid the backdrop of the mid-1800s, finding cause for concern over the potential for a tyranny of the majority in a modern democracy, noticing the slippery role of authority in a "democratic" system, and ultimately recognizing the need for a new conception of liberty in the modern age. It shows how these two great thinkers weave their philosophies together seamlessly in some respects, and appear to depart radically in others.

From the Paper
"Alexis de Tocqueville, author of the indomitable Democracy in America, perceived in the United States of the 1830s the rudimentary traits of the world's first modern democracy. Tocqueville's conceptions of liberty, authority, and the consequences of democracy have aided students of the American way of life, illuminating the many unique characteristics(and contradictions) that define the modern democratic experiment. Similarly, John Stuart Mill, author of "On Liberty"(1859), undertakes to extrapolate from the human condition and the democratic experiment a theory of liberty that clearly defines the rights of all individuals."

Tags:philosophy, tyranny

Abstract
This essay discusses John Stuart Mill's liberal views on individual freedom. The writer then compares these views to the views of Karl Marx on freedom and social class offered in the "Communist Manifesto." The writer concludes by addressing whether or not Marx' analysis is a valid counter to Mill's more liberal view of the concept.

From the Paper
"Both John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx were philosophers with a strong emphasis on individual freedom. Mill viewed freedom under a legitimate government concerned with the greatest good as necessary and possible. Mill argued in 'On Liberty' that individual freedom is and must be viewed as a sacrosanct quality and that there are few if any circumstances under which a state may rightfully interfere with individual freedom. Karl Marx also theorized about society's evolution toward true freedom believing society evolved toward freedom ... "

Tags:production, labor, utility, utilitarianism, happiness, owners, self-interest, protection, greatest good

Abstract
This paper studies John Stuart Mill's concept of liberty which is stated in his book "On Liberty." This paper endeavors to define exactly what Mills' notion of liberty is and how it should be regulated.The main discrepancies of his theory are highlighted so as to demonstrate the apparent contradiction between his ideology and the examples he chooses to showcase his theory in its application. This paper concludes that his approach seems to be liberal but ends up with a distinctly "non-liberal" feel.

From the Paper
"Mill defines liberty (civil or social) as "the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual." (Chapter I - Introductory; 1) The obvious wielder of this power Mill identified to be the government. However the government can be controlled or checked in turn since they are still held accountable to the people. Mill recognized another wielder of this control over the individual, the "society" in question that exercises this power over the individual is the majority or those considered to be the majority. However, unlike the government, which is held accountable to the people, the majority does not have those checks. Mill states that in many instances the ruling majority is not always the same people who have this power exercised on them. The majority may even wish to dominate a part of the population. Therefore, there would still need to be a limitation placed on this ruling majority. (Chapter I - Introductory; 4)"

Tags:John, Stuart, Mill, 'On, Liberty', power, society, government, individual, majority, control

Abstract
This paper provides discussion and analysis of John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty," focusing on his conceptions of individuality and conformity and the effects of these two contrasting categories on society as a whole. Mill places great importance on a people's ability to exercise individual choice, arguing that our very humanity is defined by our ability to make our own decisions. One of the greatest champions of the power of the individual, Mill urges people to avoid conformity, or blind, unquestioning adherence to existing norms, even if those norms are archaic, and do not make logical sense within the context of contemporary society. Conformity, he argues, causes society to stagnate if societal constructions are never questioned or challenged, nothing will ever change and society will cease to progress. This paper examines Mill's theory as it applies to 19th century Britain and Western society in general (seen by Mill as in danger of succumbing to conformity), focusing on issues of censorship and the strict moral codes of the period.

From the Paper
"He argues that what renders a person human is his/her ability to choose, and that by blindly adhering to custom a person rejects his/her humanity and individuality. In order to be an individual, one must understand previous customs but then interpret them and, if necessary, change them to fit one's personal views and lifestyle. He places great value on individuality; not only is it crucial to the proper development of the human being, but to the development of society, for without it society will become stagnant and immobile. That is, if people stick to customs without questioning whether those customs are applicable to their lives and times and adjusting them appropriately, their societies will cease to progress. He applies his theories to 19th century Western society, warning that modern censorship and strict regulations hinder the development of the individual, and consequently the society. No greater responsibility, importance, and glory can be placed on individuality than are placed by Mill."

Tags:choice, unthinking, hero, worship

From the Paper
"Political theorists have long pondered the formula for a successful governing system. In doing so, despotism and majoritarian rule have arisen as two possible forms of government. John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, and Alexi de Tocqueville, in Democracy in America, both refute the idea of despotic rule, not of a single ruler, but of the majority. The "tyranny of the majority,"[1] as Mill describes, is worse than straightforward dictatorship and should be avoided. Tocqueville concurs that unlimited power, in the hands of an absolute majority that is able to exercise both physical and moral control, is dangerous to the sovereignty of the individual. "

Tags:america, democracy, despotisms, freedom, government, liberty, majoritarian, power, rule

Abstract
This paper analyzes whether the political theory of negative freedom is a persuasive argument. It looks at the underlying concept of negative freedom and its interpretation, and the opposing views of negative freedom. It concludes that although a flawed argument, it is supported by solid theories, therefore is persuasive.

From the Paper
"The concept of freedom is a core value of society, many believing that a greater amount of freedom will lead to a greater and more fulfilling lifestyle. As a result the concept has been subject to a range of philosophical discussions, in particular the balancing of freedom and order. For example, by limiting freedom through laws which prohibit certain actions such as murder, greater freedom is enjoyed by other members of society. Mill (1982) even suggested that intervention by the state is only viable where one persons actions would cause harm to another. Negative freedom is the dominant concept of liberals, distinguished to positive freedom by Berlin (1969) in his article "Two Concepts of Liberty". Negative freedom refers to "the sphere of action within which an individual is left alone to do or be whatever he or she may want to do or be" (Carter, 2002). Through close examination of this concept, it's interpretation and opposing views of freedom, it's validity as a "persuasive" theory can be inferred."

Tags:berlin, hobbes, liberty, mill, political, politics, science, theories

Abstract
In the philosophy of law, two competing factions each offer compelling arguments as to the basic nature, origin, authority and responsibility of law. These two theories are known as Natural Law Theory and Legal Positivism. This paper shows that while there are many disagreements between the two theories, at the heart of the argument is the questionable relationship between law and morality. The paper examines how Natural Law Theorists argue that there is an essential and innate overlap between law and morality, while Legal Positivists argue that while the decisions of law and morality do occasionally overlap, there is no natural relationship between them.

From the Paper
"Legal Positivists rely on a sovereign to legislate law; this sovereign,
whether it be a monarch, an aristocracy, an elected parliament, or any other person or body that writes the law for a society. For a sovereign to be considered as such, most, if not all, of the population must follow the sovereign's laws, and there must be a threat of force to enforce the law. If either of these conditions are not met, the leader cannot claim to be a true sovereign entity. Also, the sovereign cannot be subject to another sovereign's authority, such as God; if a sovereign is to be the head of a society and the maker of laws, she must be invulnerable to persuasion or else she is not a sovereign."

Tags:Judeo-Christian, John, Stuart, Mill, Jeremy, Bentham, Hobbes

Abstract
An examination of John Mill and Immanuel Kant's theories on ethics. The author examines Mill's view of hedonistic ethics and Kant's view of reason and intentions. The author explains and compares these two point of views.

From the Paper
"Ethics, being as broad and opinion-based as it is, can be a difficult issue not only to define, but also to explain clearly to others. In the 18 and 19 hundreds two outgoing philosophers set forth to provide moral theories formed with concrete information, to add to the foundation of ethics. These two men were John Mill and Immanuel Kant, and their views were known as Utilitarianism and Kantian theory respectively. Both avoid interlacing their own opinions, in hope of finding a greater genuineness to their conjectures. Mill offers us a hedonistic ethics, full of pleasure and ends, while Kant proposes ridged principles of reason and intentions. Due to the fact that the subject is so hard to understand, many times their work must be interpreted and simplified. This paper will attempt to do just that, clarify the conjectures of these two theorists."

Tags:consequentialism, deontology, ethics, kantian, utilitarianism

Abstract
A discussion of negative freedom and whether or not it is a "persuasive" political theory. The paper explores the concept of negative theory, what it means, opposition to the theory, and other related political theories. The paper looks at the writings of John Stuart Mill, Robert Hobbes and many other political commentators of the past and present.

From the Paper
"The concept of freedom is a core value of society, many believing that a greater amount of freedom will lead to a greater and more fulfilling lifestyle. As a result the concept has been subject to a range of philosophical discussions, in particular the balancing of freedom and order. For example, by limiting freedom through laws which prohibit certain actions such as murder, greater freedom is enjoyed by other members of society. Mill (1982) even suggested that intervention by the state is only viable where one persons actions would cause harm to another. Negative freedom is the dominant concept of liberals, distinguished to positive freedom by Berlin (1969) in his article "Two Concepts of Liberty". Negative freedom refers to "the sphere of action within which an individual is left alone to do or be whatever he or she may want to do or be" (Carter, 2002). Through close examination of this concept, it's interpretation and opposing views of freedom, it's validity as a "persuasive" theory can be inferred."

Tags:berlin, Leviathan, true, self, On, Liberty