John Stuart Mill Argumentative Essay
This argumentative essay will discuss whether or not a Millian society, based upon Mill’s writing, would have a governing body that would be able to provide an equal basis for positive and negative freedom for its community members. I will argue that a society built solely upon Mill’s arguments would have a government that would ensure people have negative freedom; however this regime would not provide any significant amount of positive freedoms. I will argue this society and government has mostly negative freedoms with this specific Millian society’s views around: individuality linked to anti-paternalism and self-regarding actions. Although there are other aspects to a Millian society, both individuality and self-regarding actions are highly important in any functioning society. This Millian society’s government would provide its citizens with negative freedoms however in such a society
…show more content…
the citizens would not be provided with sufficient positive freedoms. My thesis is most defensible when the definition of positive freedom includes both physical and non-physical intervention from preforming a task that one would otherwise have the ability to do. Based on Mill’s writing, an objection can be raised about the lack of positive freedom each individual has, and if it is imperative to the individuals day to day functions and way of life. I will discuss possible differences for an individual living in a Millian society and an individual living in a society with more positive freedom, and how the difference might affect the individual. I will explain why I believe a Millian society would not be fathomable by arguing that as rational beings we have the instinct to evolve and better control oneself and environment. A government that simply states anything can be done lawfully so long as it does not endanger other people does not provide enough structure for a society that wishes to develop and thrive, socially and economically. I will begin my exposition of Berlin’s writing by stating what he refers to as positive and negative freedoms. Berlin defines negative freedom as, doing what one is able to do without interference from other persons. The concept of having negative freedoms is central in the Millian society, as seen through the outline of the laws that would this given society. Berlin then defines positive freedom as, interference by others from doing what one is otherwise able to do. A society based upon Mill’s writing would lack in such freedom because the majority of the rule of the society is based upon non-interference to allow for maximum potential growth. I will now further my exposition by introducing Mill’s thinking and provide proofs from the text to support my thesis, and show that in Mill’s society there is a greater emphasis on negative freedoms. The aforementioned definition of positive and negative freedoms are used throughout Mill’s writing to create a theoretical society in which the citizens are mostly free to do what they which, therefore they have more negative freedoms than positive freedoms. In Mill’s writing he discusses self-regarding actions, which contribute to one’s negative liberty. Mill’s explains that these actions are only part of one’s conduct answerable to society is that which concerns others. (Mill, 51) When Mill’s writes about individual’s actions he says that it is unacceptable to interfere if their action do no effect anyone else, even if they are affecting the individual committing the act. In continuation of my exposition, Mill’s also explains the importance of individuality and how anti-paternalism plays a role in process that allows each person to find the solitary self because it is better to be free and make mistakes. Individuality is a negative freedom because it encourages different trials in living, this entails that everyone should be left without interference to experiment and each person should be left to practice anyway of living their life that they desire. Mill’s concept of individuality also says that various character traits in each person should be accepted and explored, with the condition that they do not interfere with another’s negative freedoms. The opposition to living by the rule of individuality is living by the “tradition and customs of others”. Moreover, to maximize individuality the youth in a Millian society should, “be taught and learn what they can from others past human experiences” (Mill, 37) However, since this is in regards to younger individual judgements should not be passed on these actions they are learning about by the one’s teaching them, to ensure that they, “have the privilege to ‘use and interpret’ experiences in their way.” (Mill, 37) I will now begin my argument by raising an objection to the lack of positive freedoms in a Millian society.
In the society that Mill’s has created each member is free to do whatever they please, so long as it does not harm another member. This means that they are no boundary around what a person is able to do. Furthermore, in this form of society each citizen must be able to control them self to the utmost degree of perfection. As rational beings we have the ability to choose what we wish to do and what activities we wish to partake in. The concept of individuality has very beneficial factors, however like everything else in life there is a limit. A line must be drawn for everyone before one is tempted by things that could lead one down a bad path. Since people are not allowed to tell you how to act in Millian society when you are inflicting harm on yourself or making a slew of bad decisions, everyone has to look out for themselves. In this form of society every person is “alone” to fend for themselves, this can lead to individuals being overly defensive and hostile toward
others. To continue my argument I will discuss a key difference between someone living in a Millian society versus some who live in a “typical” Canadian society. Without pre-set parameter surrounding our actions, once an individual has reached an age of self-exploration they have no way to put their actions in respect to “good” and “bad”. A person living in such a society would differ from an individual living in a “typical” Canadian society because they would not have the same restrictions around parameters such as: age, and social standards. This would cause an impediment in the development of the societies youth because of the extremity of exploration needed, resulting in elongated time before independence can be established. In continuation of my argument based on the lack of positive freedoms in a Millian society, I will discuss why such a society is not fathomable. A society such as the one described in Mill’s writing would change over time to become a society with both negative and positive freedom. As human beings we strive to continually better ourselves, evolve, and establish different relations with in our communities, therefore the pitfall of this society would be the lack of availability for development and growth. Moreover, this society would most likely begin to develop other law and adapt to better guide its citizens. Such a society would adopt a new form of government or be taken over by a form of organized government in order for it to be able to move forward. This regime would most likely move in with its own new sets of laws and regulations that would prohibit individuals from doing thing that they could have done before in the strictly Mill’s based society.
While arguing that this society would most likely fail due to the significant lack of positive freedoms I would like to make clear that this Millian society does have some aspects of positive freedom, however it is most built upon the premise of negative freedom. Furthermore, a society based upon Mill’s writing would provide its citizens with negative freedoms however in such a society the citizens would not be provided with sufficient positive freedoms. Mill’s writing on self-regarding action and individuality from anti-paternalism is the most significant part of the society because outcome of a society is based on the development of its citizens. This type of society would force a delay in an individual independence because of the prolonged exploration for individuality; this in turn would slow the progression of the society. These claims all work together to show that the government of a Millian society would not do enough to provide both positive and negative freedom, and thus such a society would not be able to survive.
the citizens would not be provided with sufficient positive freedoms. My thesis is most defensible when the definition of positive freedom includes both physical and non-physical intervention from preforming a task that one would otherwise have the ability to do. Based on Mill’s writing, an objection can be raised about the lack of positive freedom each individual has, and if it is imperative to the individuals day to day functions and way of life. I will discuss possible differences for an individual living in a Millian society and an individual living in a society with more positive freedom, and how the difference might affect the individual. I will explain why I believe a Millian society would not be fathomable by arguing that as rational beings we have the instinct to evolve and better control oneself and environment. A government that simply states anything can be done lawfully so long as it does not endanger other people does not provide enough structure for a society that wishes to develop and thrive, socially and economically. I will begin my exposition of Berlin’s writing by stating what he refers to as positive and negative freedoms. Berlin defines negative freedom as, doing what one is able to do without interference from other persons. The concept of having negative freedoms is central in the Millian society, as seen through the outline of the laws that would this given society. Berlin then defines positive freedom as, interference by others from doing what one is otherwise able to do. A society based upon Mill’s writing would lack in such freedom because the majority of the rule of the society is based upon non-interference to allow for maximum potential growth. I will now further my exposition by introducing Mill’s thinking and provide proofs from the text to support my thesis, and show that in Mill’s society there is a greater emphasis on negative freedoms. The aforementioned definition of positive and negative freedoms are used throughout Mill’s writing to create a theoretical society in which the citizens are mostly free to do what they which, therefore they have more negative freedoms than positive freedoms. In Mill’s writing he discusses self-regarding actions, which contribute to one’s negative liberty. Mill’s explains that these actions are only part of one’s conduct answerable to society is that which concerns others. (Mill, 51) When Mill’s writes about individual’s actions he says that it is unacceptable to interfere if their action do no effect anyone else, even if they are affecting the individual committing the act. In continuation of my exposition, Mill’s also explains the importance of individuality and how anti-paternalism plays a role in process that allows each person to find the solitary self because it is better to be free and make mistakes. Individuality is a negative freedom because it encourages different trials in living, this entails that everyone should be left without interference to experiment and each person should be left to practice anyway of living their life that they desire. Mill’s concept of individuality also says that various character traits in each person should be accepted and explored, with the condition that they do not interfere with another’s negative freedoms. The opposition to living by the rule of individuality is living by the “tradition and customs of others”. Moreover, to maximize individuality the youth in a Millian society should, “be taught and learn what they can from others past human experiences” (Mill, 37) However, since this is in regards to younger individual judgements should not be passed on these actions they are learning about by the one’s teaching them, to ensure that they, “have the privilege to ‘use and interpret’ experiences in their way.” (Mill, 37) I will now begin my argument by raising an objection to the lack of positive freedoms in a Millian society.
In the society that Mill’s has created each member is free to do whatever they please, so long as it does not harm another member. This means that they are no boundary around what a person is able to do. Furthermore, in this form of society each citizen must be able to control them self to the utmost degree of perfection. As rational beings we have the ability to choose what we wish to do and what activities we wish to partake in. The concept of individuality has very beneficial factors, however like everything else in life there is a limit. A line must be drawn for everyone before one is tempted by things that could lead one down a bad path. Since people are not allowed to tell you how to act in Millian society when you are inflicting harm on yourself or making a slew of bad decisions, everyone has to look out for themselves. In this form of society every person is “alone” to fend for themselves, this can lead to individuals being overly defensive and hostile toward
others. To continue my argument I will discuss a key difference between someone living in a Millian society versus some who live in a “typical” Canadian society. Without pre-set parameter surrounding our actions, once an individual has reached an age of self-exploration they have no way to put their actions in respect to “good” and “bad”. A person living in such a society would differ from an individual living in a “typical” Canadian society because they would not have the same restrictions around parameters such as: age, and social standards. This would cause an impediment in the development of the societies youth because of the extremity of exploration needed, resulting in elongated time before independence can be established. In continuation of my argument based on the lack of positive freedoms in a Millian society, I will discuss why such a society is not fathomable. A society such as the one described in Mill’s writing would change over time to become a society with both negative and positive freedom. As human beings we strive to continually better ourselves, evolve, and establish different relations with in our communities, therefore the pitfall of this society would be the lack of availability for development and growth. Moreover, this society would most likely begin to develop other law and adapt to better guide its citizens. Such a society would adopt a new form of government or be taken over by a form of organized government in order for it to be able to move forward. This regime would most likely move in with its own new sets of laws and regulations that would prohibit individuals from doing thing that they could have done before in the strictly Mill’s based society.
While arguing that this society would most likely fail due to the significant lack of positive freedoms I would like to make clear that this Millian society does have some aspects of positive freedom, however it is most built upon the premise of negative freedom. Furthermore, a society based upon Mill’s writing would provide its citizens with negative freedoms however in such a society the citizens would not be provided with sufficient positive freedoms. Mill’s writing on self-regarding action and individuality from anti-paternalism is the most significant part of the society because outcome of a society is based on the development of its citizens. This type of society would force a delay in an individual independence because of the prolonged exploration for individuality; this in turn would slow the progression of the society. These claims all work together to show that the government of a Millian society would not do enough to provide both positive and negative freedom, and thus such a society would not be able to survive.