John Stuart Mill's Argument Essay
The renowned philospoher Honoré de Balzac once suggested in his 1831 publication that; “When law becomes despotic, morals are relaxed, and vice versa”[1]. By all means, this certainly is a controversial statement, albeit does Balzac have a valid point to uphold? One might question; “What precicely is the concept of morality?”. George P. Fletcher claims that virtually all Indo-European languages have developed a concept of “morality” based on the Latin root mores and a concept of “ethics” from the Greek root ethike[2]. Therefore, do laws exist simply because we are viewed as immoral or unethical? I personally would refute that statement as laws exist for a myriad of reasons, primarily to govern human behavior by prohibiting certain forms of
…show more content…
According to Duane L. Cady, Mill creates the principle of utility as a moral example to exert the maximum happiness from the largest number of people in sentient creation and to eliminate their unhappiness as much as possible, predominantly relating to suffering and pain.[8] Mill proposed that both the removal of moral barriers and the paternalistic approach would lead to greater diversity and liberty in society. Was Mill however daring to be different as supported by a quotation of his: “That so few now dare to be eccentric, marks the chief danger of the time”? His work has undoubtably been the subject of much coverage, mainly in regard to the potential extinction of morals in society. Herbert Hart implied that it was: ‘designated to protect individuals against themselves’, therefore perhaps designed for people to abuse and be abused.[9] In addition to this, Mill’s actual thesis proposing his theory was refuted by Sir James Fitzjames Stephen. The nature of his objection was with the contents of criminal law and that and that an important aspect of the law was to gratify ‘the feeling of hatrid’ that the notion of criminal conduct stimulates in the minds of right thinking individuals.[10] I am inclined to agree with Stephen in this instance as law conteniently exists and there will be some aspects which will involve a clash of opinions, rather similar to what Issac Newton once stated, yet in an utterly different context: ‘To every action there is always imposed an equal reaction’. This signifies that humans will always repel against certain laws, regardless of their repructions or their
According to Duane L. Cady, Mill creates the principle of utility as a moral example to exert the maximum happiness from the largest number of people in sentient creation and to eliminate their unhappiness as much as possible, predominantly relating to suffering and pain.[8] Mill proposed that both the removal of moral barriers and the paternalistic approach would lead to greater diversity and liberty in society. Was Mill however daring to be different as supported by a quotation of his: “That so few now dare to be eccentric, marks the chief danger of the time”? His work has undoubtably been the subject of much coverage, mainly in regard to the potential extinction of morals in society. Herbert Hart implied that it was: ‘designated to protect individuals against themselves’, therefore perhaps designed for people to abuse and be abused.[9] In addition to this, Mill’s actual thesis proposing his theory was refuted by Sir James Fitzjames Stephen. The nature of his objection was with the contents of criminal law and that and that an important aspect of the law was to gratify ‘the feeling of hatrid’ that the notion of criminal conduct stimulates in the minds of right thinking individuals.[10] I am inclined to agree with Stephen in this instance as law conteniently exists and there will be some aspects which will involve a clash of opinions, rather similar to what Issac Newton once stated, yet in an utterly different context: ‘To every action there is always imposed an equal reaction’. This signifies that humans will always repel against certain laws, regardless of their repructions or their