Freedom: John Stuart Mill Essay

1. potty Stuart milling machinery FreedomFreedom is generally defined, by a dictionary, as the hold in or right of existence able or allowed to do, say, think, etc. whatever you want to, without being controlled or limited (Cambridge). This means at that place is no interference or influence in ones crookions or opinions by anyone else. in that location is no domination or dictatorial g everyplacenment who affects these actions or opinions. John Stuart Mill, an side of meat philosopher and economist, gives a interchangeable view on throw in the toweldom as the Cambridge dictionary, and looks at the nature and limits of the force out which can be legitimately exercised by hunting lodge over the one-on-one (Mill, 6). Mills view of independence, as he writes in his book On Liberty, is that Over himself, over his protest body and mind, the singular is sovereign, (Mill, 13). By this he means that an psyche is free when they pack independent choices, have independent opi nions and have independent actions.When a person thinks and acts without the influence of outside opinion, a person exercises his or her receive freedom. Mill divides tender-hearted intimacy into three regions. The first is the domain of the moral sense and liberty of thought and feeling, (Mill, 15). The second is the liberty of tastes and pursuits, and framing the plan of your conduct (Mill, 16). The third region is the freedom to unite, for any purpose non involving prostitute to others (Mill, 16). He states that if a society has a respect for these three regions of humanity liberty, then a society is free (Mill, 16). The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursue our have got good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to take it (Mill, 16).yet, he states that if an individual exercises their freedom in a way that threatens damage to another, there should be interference to pr thus fart distress f rom being done. He asserts that the only time anyone can interfere with or exercise mogul over an individuals liberty is when that individual is threatening injure to another and this interference is used for self-protection, (Mill, 13). If an individual is practicing their own freedom in their own way, without preventing others from doing so, then there should be no interference with the individual. For example, if an individual decides to drink an alcoholic beverage, such as a beer, at 10 in the morning, then there should be no interference with that. He knows alcohol is harmful, he is choosing to drink the beer and as long as his actions do not interfere with anyone else then he should not be interfered with. tho if his drinking makes him violent, and he decides to start a fight with someone else, there should be interference to prevent the intoxicated individual from causing harm to another individual. Mills states that the right of liberty does not hold up to children, those who are still in a state to require being taken care of by others or backward states of society (Mill, 14). some other struggle discussed by Mill in his book, is the struggle between society and the individual about which should have control over the individuals actions. Mill observes that the world seems to be in a place where in a society, laws and public opinion have more power over an individuals actions and thoughts, than the individual has over himself.However society seems to prefer conformity and even demand it. Mill argues that due to conformity, an individual is unable to make meaty choices, which keeps him from personal development. He believes that freedom, along with individuality, is essential to both individual as well as social progress (Mill, 66). Conformity keeps people from encyclopedism from each other and they are unable to approach their life in an appealing way. In his opinion, the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robb ing the human race, (Mills, 19.)When contrasting Mills view on freedom with the Dutch philosopher Benedict de de Spinozas view, there is a clear difference. Spinoza defined freedom as self- take a leakd, which implied that only God can be free (Kisner, 8). He did not believe that humans could be free because we are not free from being determined by outside agents (McKinnon, 109). He withal believed that finite things, such as a humans brain, could not make a choice that was not caused by external factors. In Spinozas IIp48 he asserted that In the Mind there is no absolute, or free, entrust, but the Mind is determined to will this or that by a cause that is also determined by another, and this again by another, and so to infinity.He did not believe in free will, because he strongly believed that something cannot be caused by nothing, therefore God is the only entity that is free, as he is not limited by outside agents (Kisner, 12). For example, an individual taking a sip of body of water could argue that they did so because they chose to do so. However external factors are involved as the choice to drink water could be because they wanted to prove that they have free will, which would be because they believed in free will. The individual could also have chosen to drink water because of thirst, which was caused by the individuals body losing water, which could be a cause of playing sports in the hot sun, due to being part of a school sports team, and so on until infinity.Friedrich August Hayek, an Austro-Hungarian economist and philosopher, has an interesting similar yet opposing view from Mills. His view of freedom is when an individual is not a part of coercion by the arbitrary will of another or others (Lukes, 160) but also that it is not the absolute liberty to do as one pleases, rather it is a recognition of the compulsion of law and morality in order to ensure that human interaction is cooperative and orderly, (Horwitz). For Hayek freedom depends on whether an individual can make his own individual decisions on what course of action to take, or whether somebody else uses power to manipulate this persons choice of action, to make the individual act as they want them to (Lukes, 160).Hayek states that a society with law should try and watch negative freedom, the freedom to not do anything prohibited and to avoid affirmatory freedom, giving people the power to do things, which allows people to be absorbed from coercion, as there is no inequality in power on a lower floor the law (Roberts). Hayek and Mill share the belief that freedom involves no coercion. An individual should not be manipulated or forced to do something that the individual did not decide himself. However Hayek and Mill disagree on the view of conformity. trance Hayek states that law and morality are important for a society, Mill disagrees and says that it keeps individuals from progressing, and that it hurts a society as a whole.In conclusion, there are many another(prenominal) philosophers who have contrasting as well as similar views on freedom as John Stuart Mill. Mill believes that a person is responsible for(p) for his or herself, the way the act, what their opinion is, and should not be interfered with unless the individual poses a threat to someone else.Bibliography MLACambridge University. Definition of Freedom Noun from Cambridge Dictionary Online Free English Dictionary and Thesaurus. Cambridge Dictionary Online Free English Dictionary and Thesaurus Cambridge University Press. Cambridge University, 2010. 11 Sept. 2011. . Horwitz, Steven. Hayek and Freedom. The Freeman. May 2006. 13 Sept. 2011. .Kisner, Matthew J. Spinoza on Human Freedom Reason, autonomy and the Good Life. Cambridge, UK Cambridge UP, 2011.Lukes, Steven. Power a Radical View. New York Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. McKinnon, Catriona. Issues in semipolitical Theory. Oxford Oxford UP, 2008. Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty 1859. 4th ed. London Longman, Roberts & Gr een, 1869. http//socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/mill/liberty.pdf Roberts, Andrew. Friedrich Hayek and Freedom. matter More. Middlesex Universty, 2007. 13 Sept. 2011. .