John Stuart Mill

Comparison of Mary Wollstonecraft’s and John Mill’s Ideas

October 21, 2021 by Essay Writer

Wollstonecraft and Mill share a typical errand, in particular, the support for more rights for women. That backing starts in conceding that women are dealt with uniquely in contrast to men. In any case, as their articles appear, there are contrasts in their backings that mirror certain logical contrasts of their occasions. When we read about both Wollstonecraft and Mills, we can come to an understanding that they both contribute to the most influential philosophical reasonings about women’s rights and their psychological actions during their own eras. Mill’s “The Greatest Happiness Principle” generally consists of the greater good one can do to help society blossom. The concept of Wollstonecraft and her ideas about the rights women deserve to have support from John Stuart Mill’s idea of the The Greatest Happiness Principle. Why? you might ask. To provide it in simpler terms, Mill’s believed in a state of no judgment, where even gay rights were admired at the time by him. Having both Mill and Wollstonecraft as revolutionary feminists.

Wollstonecraft expresses her ideas on the off chance that, for example, a lady gave more consideration to what men think about her looks, at that point she is flopping in her ethical commitment since she is occupied from her job, herself. She contends that every single lady ought to procure appropriate training as the best way to pick up regard, just as the opportunity to pick the degree of her freedom. She expresses the concept of education in a way were “only men” in her eyes have the opportunity to receive education, while women are neglected by proper schooling to minimize their intelligence. Considering the sole fact that men manipulate women to the point where they have to water them down, so they don’t rebel was one of her strongest philosophical expressions. A woman who isn’t instructed sees herself from the viewpoint of men. Accordingly, being aware of that manly point of view, she becomes crafty, mean, and narrow-minded, either in defiance to or veneration for that view. Her objective isn’t to split away from that residential cycle, however, may be to give it better status and name and, therefore, inspire the status of women.

On the other hand, John Stuart Mill’s arguments didn’t fall far from the foundation of Wollstonecraft. Mill, in contrast to Wollstonecraft, expects to give women the privilege to go into fields up to this point known to have a place with men. Mill’s essay consists of the idea of “perfect equality”, a level of influence where no side is given control over the other. By impeccable uniformity, Mill implies that women ought to have equivalent rights as men in all aspects of life, for example, occupation, government, and marriage. He explains his reasoning by applying the roles of nature and nurture, which made him question nature which is used by society to justify the predicament of women. To him, he sees that the idea of women is really the manner in which society has them to be, which includes how the nature of them is nurtured by society. He argues the idea that women should have their own reasonings and can rise above men or be equal to them.

Both Wollstonecraft and Mill have very interesting arguments for their own thinking. Although Mill consists of a more freedom-based state of nature, Wollstonecraft also articulates the principle of her reasoning which is the idea of education being more accessible for women due to constant manipulation being addressed towards them by men, since they deep down know the power that they can hold. The general public has never given women much room and opportunity to investigate what their tendency truly is. Or maybe, by setting and administering women inside the system of the prevailing man-centric mind, society has sustained the woman into what she is. Just, the contrasts among people are the results of the general public as opposed to the aftereffect of nature. The arrangement, to him, is found in opening space for women to investigate further the points of confinement of their temperament.

So, where does Wollstonecraft fall into Mill’s idea of The Greatest Happiness Principle. It falls into place since Wollstonecraft believes in the idea that women should also receive rights, although the thinkers don’t agree with everything and see eye to eye, they do present distinctive evidence about how women’s rights fall under the general idea of happiness. Mill’s believed in overall equality and the greatest happiness meaning he’s philosophical reasoning allowed us all to live freely against all judgments. Meaning that women’s rights would not only be something presented to us as “normal” as a man’s rights, but also allows them to live freely amongst those that do not manipulate the constant idea that they cannot function as men do. This falls under the concept of “The Greatest Happiness Principle”, because the principle here is to release all judgments to create equality. Equality that allows not only men but women as well to fall under the same spectrum and have the abilities/opportunities that men have on a regular basis.

Taking everything into account, this paper doesn’t deplete the issues that the two creators investigate in their papers. In any case, it investigates the focal subjects in the two articles. Wollstonecraft considers instruction to be sufficient. Mill’s requests substantially more. At last, the two of them perceive the unfavorable predicament of the womenfolk and require their ‘opportunity’- any circumstance superior to the present.

Read more

John Stuart Mill and the Formation of Scientific Psychology

October 21, 2021 by Essay Writer

The Author

John Stuart mill was born on May 20th, 1806 at London and died on May 7th, 1873 at Avignon, France. He was a British philosopher, economist and exponent of Utilitarianism (ethical theories according to which an action is right if it tends to promote global happiness and wrong if it tends to produce the reverse). Mill was one of the leading thinkers of his time and he is considered as one of the most influential thinkers in the classical liberalism framework. He contributed widely to social, economy and political theories. Known as the most influential English-speaking philosopher in the nineteenth century, John Stuart Mill’s conception of liberty was mainly based on the freedom of the individual.

The Central Thesis of the Book

Published in 1859, the central idea of the book is the ethical system of Utilitarianism to society and state. In fact, John Stuart Mill tried to show that Utilitarianism can provide a strong protection of right. Therefore, individuality should be protected. It is about this idea that how much control should society or government exhibited over individuals? How much freedom should we have? A topic important emphasis by Mill is the idea of personal liberty of expressing unpopular opinions and repercussions for holding some viewpoints. For the author, negative opinionated ideas, questioning about social issues or more generally how things are and what is taking for granted are essential for society to developed itself. Mill emphasis that whatever might be a really unpopular opinion today that could be a prevalent one tomorrow. Therefore, you can’t know when someone opinion is wrong. That’s why every individuals’ opinion should not be shut down. The only restriction of someone’s liberties should only be done by the state in the only case of the harm of someone else.

Argumentation Structure

Chapter 1. The Introduction

Probably one of the most important part of his theory is developed in the introduction. Mill began with an overview of the liberty concept through Rome, Athens and England and the major issues about the concept. Mill underlining the struggle between individuals and society about how individuals’ action should be limited/controlled or even struggle between liberty and authority. For him, liberty applies when people can learn from freely discussion. Mill’s argumentation about freedom is justified by liberty utilitarian. It is not the claim of an abstract and natural right but rather linked to utility for the whole society and humankind. Nevertheless, liberty is somewhat limited only when it interferes with another individual’s liberty or self-protection. He concludes the introduction part by three important pillars for liberties: The freedom of thought and emotion, the freedom to pursue our own preferences no matter how the society perceived it and the freedom to be part of a community.

Chapter 2. on the Liberty of Thought and Discussion

In this part, Mill underlining the sovereignty of individual and defend free speech. He argued that it is essential that all opinions, whatever right or wrong, should be heard and the omissions of them is hurting society. Mill justified this idea by the fact that in the past history, some past popular opinion which were widely widespread and popular are now rejected, and inversely. Men can misunderstand or misjudge potential good ideas, that’s why every individual should be allowed to express his opinion, to debate and argue again the most basic and popular beliefs of a present society. Finally, he pointed out that on the one hand religion and integrity is not correlated and on the other hand explained that Christian faith should not overpass the personal integrity and individual’s consideration.

Chapter 3. Of Individuality, as One of the Elements of Well-Being

Mill defends individual’s liberty nevertheless, there are some limitations. Freedom is not permitted when someone do harm to others wither their action. Moreover, Mill argued that every human is different, and it is important for individuals to have his own desires and impulses because they produce energy, change and activity. Indeed, for him, original thoughts are crucial for the human society and sometimes it does not fit into the usual mold. Mill raise the religion issues and he conclude that any will, religious or not, that negatively impacts individuality is tyrannical.

Chapter 4. On the Limits to the Authority of Society Over the Individual

In this chapter Mill explained how an individual can easily distinguish what aspect of life should be governed by himself or by the society. Moreover, he clearly points out that individual is free to pursue his own interest, but liberty is not the purpose of selfish indifference, rather it is the constant judgment of the consequences of our action over the society. Individual has an obligation to the community not to violate others right otherwise government has the duty to punish him. If government can’t punish him so society’s opinion and judgment will be served like a punishment. Finally, Mill described what is a good society and what its duty. For him, society is accountable for his members, it should be the duty of society to raise good and fellow citizens through institutions.

Chapter 5. Application

This conclusion is about application of Mill’s principles. He exposes the biggest challenges and questions for society. He suggests plenty measures that are used in modern society. Mill applied his principles explained in previous chapters to some practical social questions like a successful government should have restricted actions, how someone’s’ action is permitted only if it does not harm another and even about the duty of state about education.


Mill had been influenced by Germans authors like Goethe and Humboldt. But mostly by his father. His father, James Mill, was a Scottish philosopher, historian and economist. John Stuart Mill was educated by him with an extremely rigorous upbringing. The father’s aim was to create a genius intellect who would defend the Utilitarianism cause and its propagation. Mill was also influenced by his father’s friends like David Ricardo, Jeremy Bentham and Francis Place. Ricardo and Mill had a good relationship and Ricardo used to invite the young Mill to his house to talk about political economy. It is also well known that Mill had a connection with France. He used to stay in Montpellier for attended some courses and also came to Paris to meet the famous Jean Baptiste Say. Finally, one the greatest influence of Mill was his wife, Harriet Taylor. His relationship with her developed Mill’s advocacy of women’s right.

Read more

John Stuart Mill’s Addition to the Views of Bentham on Utilitarianism

October 21, 2021 by Essay Writer

Utilitarianism is “the view that the right action is that, among the open choices, results in the greatest good (usually defined as pleasure/happiness) for the greatest number of persons,” (class glossary). One such theorist is John Stuart Mill. Heavily influenced by Bentham, the father of utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill adopted the view of utilitarianism and strengthened it by altering the way in which happiness is defined. In this essay, I will explain how Mill adds on to Bentham’s version of utilitarianism. I will explain the concept of mental cultivation, why it is important to happiness, and how this concept is related to the right of free speech.

Part of Bentham’s view was that everyone had the ability to define their own, subjective happiness with the calculus of felicity. This entailed rating an experience in seven different areas including intensity, duration, and certainty. For example, the action of partying instead of studying would score high in intensity (strength of pleasure), but low in purity (indicating a strong probability that the pleasure would be followed by displeasure). In this rating system, there is no measure of quality, only quantity. In Bentham’s words: “Prejudice apart, the game of push-pin is of equal value with the arts and sciences of music and poetry.” John Stuart Mill refuted this, claiming that happiness is more objective than this, and that it is not defined solely by the individual. To support this, Mill added a qualitative aspect to the measure of happiness. This qualitative aspect takes the form of mental cultivation. As Mill expresses in the following quote: “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question,” humans are capable of experiencing higher pleasures than those experienced by a pig. Mental cultivation is the act of becoming educated on the foundations of knowledge in order to experience higher pleasures. Thus, in contrast to Bentham, Mill believes that people should prefer “poetry” over “push-pin”. Mill argues that anyone who engages in mental cultivation will come to realize that some pleasures are of a higher quality than others. This realization will make them competent judges. Mill believes that because mental cultivation can lead to individual and social growth, it facilitates happiness.

In order for mental cultivation to be successful, people need to be introduced to new ideas. Thus, in order to facilitate mental cultivation, people need the right to free speech. Free speech can show someone that the life they’re living isn’t making them as happy as they could be, or that what they believe isn’t correct. This allows mental cultivation to take place by disallowing people to hold unchallenged beliefs dogmatically. Introducing people to a marketplace of ideas that is unhindered by restriction can stop people from stagnating in their journey of mental cultivation. For example, say a person is born into a religion, and is never introduced to any other ideas or philosophies due to the overbearing government they live under. This person may not be as happy practicing this religion as they would another, or none at all. However, since they live in a place with no freedom of speech, they are unable to practice mental cultivation as they don’t have the opportunity to be introduced to new ideas.

Read more

Review and Analysis of John Stuart Mill’s Essay on Liberty

October 21, 2021 by Essay Writer

One of the most challenging dilemmas for humankind to overcome is the concept of liberty. The boundaries as to the extent of a given person’s thoughts, expressions and actions before being halted has been debated for millennia. When it comes to viewpoints and actions, how far is too far? And who declares this extent? How can it be decided that one set of people can define for the rest, the limits of their beliefs and how freely they can express themselves?

Modern political philosopher John Stuart Mill attempts to provide an answer to this challenging question in his essay entitled On Liberty. Throughout his disquisition, Mill defends his opinions regarding basic human rights, liberalism and utilitarianism. The following piece will be a thorough amalgamation of Mill’s summarized beliefs and intermittent critiques. Although Mill puts forth thought-provoking concepts, certain specificities in his argument were overlooked, and his work lacked full justification, rendering the piece untenable.In the first segment of Mill’s monograph he explores the concept of society exerting power over an individual and the history of power itself. Although this concept is far from new he explains its prevalence in the developing world, as humans progress to a more and more civilized state. In previous times, liberty had “meant protection against the tyranny of political rulers”.

Specifically, in Ancient Greece, Rome and England, authority was inherited or derived by conquest, and oftentimes used against their own subjects, let alone external enemies. As time advanced, people came to realize that those who possess power in both the political and social realm use it against those who don’t. Mill brings forth the concept of the tyranny of majority, and how social tyranny is oftentimes more intimidating than political oppression, as it “prevents the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways”. It is here that he introduces his argument that individuals should have the right of liberty over themselves, regardless if others believe their opinion is “foolish, perverse or wrong”. Continuing that coercion by others should only occur when an individual poses a threat to another.

Mill then expresses his stance that the right of liberty should not apply to children, people of certain races, or what he refers to as “backward states of society”. He claims these groups should submit to “implicit obedience…” by a ruler “…if they are so fortunate as to find one” until they are capable of exercising their liberty. The exception to his stance is what I believe to be a major flaw in his argument. How is one group able to decide whether or not another group is capable of their basic rights to free thought and actions? To fully comprehend where this strong opinion originates, the reader must acknowledge the fact that Mill was a British male existing in the nineteenth century. During this era, the British Empire was actively occupying and holding sovereignty over the people of India. For years of his own life Mill took on the role of a colonial administrator at the East India Company (EIC), which seized control over a wide-span area of India. He was clearly born into the idea that the people of India belonged to this exception; he believed they were not deserving of their own liberty. Despite India thriving long before Britain, it was much less capitalistic and industrialized. According to himself and the other participants of the EIC, bringing trade to India was an improvement. In reality, he had justified colonialism and capitalism; invading the Indian subcontinent and using power against them, in order to build a society following Britain’s ideals for success.

Because Mill genuinely believed the EIC was aiding in the development of India, rather than tyrannically infringing upon the rights of Indians to their own land, his actions stay true to his thesis. In his perspective, he was indeed helping rather than harming. Later in his piece, Mill touches on the concept of a person’s ability to express his opinion. Mill believes any civilized person should always have the ability to express their viewpoints on subject matter freely, and without scolding or retribution. Even if a single man held an opinion the rest disagreed with, mankind would never be justified to silence him. Mill corroborates this by declaring any idea has the potential to be true. If an idea, later found to be true, is silenced because the majority of people believe otherwise, all people “lose … the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error”. He continues that humans are capable of correcting their mistakes through experience and discussion. A truth can only be a truth if it is capable of withstanding criticism and alternate opinions. One of the faults of human nature is the assumption of infallibility regarding commonly accepted truths. If one person is to argue against that opinion, he faces the beratement of others. Mill provides the executions of Jesus Christ and Socrates as examples. In both these renowned cases, the personages were put to death for blasphemy for thoughts too radical for the times in which they belonged.Mill proceeds to express that truth could be justifiably persecuted if unconventional. On the contrary, he explains how unfortunate and unfair it is that the theorist suffers mistreatment. Even if the truth has been silenced by the suppressors, it typically re-emerges over time. There is no method to fully extinguish a true opinion. However, if a truth is approved by all, it will become what he refers to as “dead dogma, not a living truth”. Essentially, if nobody argues or fights against a truth, it begins to lose its power. The public will gradually hold such a truth as a prejudice; as a result, the truth will lose validity. In his work, Mill appears to only acknowledge conflicting opinions based on similar rudimentary presumptions. He considers only the disagreement amongst a subset of humankind, rather than humanity as a whole. Radically different civilizations, with varying climates, history and languages will naturally conflict with ideals and standards of beliefs. Conversations regarding these varying opinions are what I deduce to be implausible. Ignoring an obvious language barrier, people of differing belief systems would not be able to sustain a debate, or even make their opinions understood by the other. Both groups may be correct about a concept in their own respects given the scenario in which case it applies. As a general example, if equatorial people and polar people debated over which apparel was most suitable to be worn daily, they would not come to a common conclusion. Rather, two drastically different opinions would be provided, each appropriate for the groups’ living situations.

I believe Mill has overlooked this concept of fundamentally varying scenarios, and their impact on the correctness of an opinion.The concept of partial truths is then brought forth into Mill’s composition. Rather than a new truthful idea replacing an old wrong one, the truth typically lies in between them. Oftentimes one idea may be correct in one sense, and another idea correct in another sense; the act of comparing and combining the partial truths leads the beholders towards the most accurate understanding. Thus far Mill has completed his analysis the liberty of free speech. Moving forward he chimes in on a person’s ability to act upon their opinions. Similar to his outlook on freedom of speech, he believes people should be able to act as they please, “so long as it is at their own risk and peril”. This being said, actions should be more limited than opinions. Mill stresses the importance of freedom of will; he highlights the criticality of making educated and informed decisions, rather than merely following customs. Mill states, “when something ceases to have individuality it ceases to develop further”. Forcing conformity upon society prevents people from learning from one another. He speaks of China becoming stationary due to the suppression of individuality, claiming the country can now only be improved by foreigners. Mill worries that Europe is progressing towards the Chinese ideal of making all people alike, weaning out uniqueness. If conformity is only challenged when “life is nearly reduced to one uniform type, all deviations from that type will come to be considered…contrary to nature”. Mill’s thought here, regarding the threat of enforced assimilation was the longer a group is unaccustomed to see diversity, the less capable mankind is to conceive it.

As a final topic in his disquisition, Mill tackles the challenge to delineate the borders between sovereignty of the individual and authority of society. He believes “to individuality should belong the part of life in which it is chiefly the individual that is interested; to society, the part in which chiefly interests society”. He believes that each should acknowledge a line of conduct towards the other. Mill yet again claims society should have jurisdiction over individuality once a person’s demeanour affects the interests of others.

I found this recurrent opinion far too vague to maintain any sense of validity. Mill expresses on numerous occasions that an individual should have a right to their own opinions, speech and actions up until they pose a threat to others. One critical factor he repeatedly fails to convey is the definition of harm itself. Harm can be defined as deliberately inflicting injury, but how is injury then defined? Being damaged? But how then is damaged defined? These synonymous terms are a continuous cycle of ambiguity. For argument’s sake, let’s take into account a popularly accepted definition, that to harm is to deliberately cause someone to be worse off than they otherwise would have been. This now leads way to controversial topics such as doctor-assisted death. If a critically ill patient requests to put an end to their life via euthanasia, according to the aforementioned definition, a doctor would not be harming the patient by any means; the outcome of the person would in no way be impacted. If this is so, why was euthanasia in Canada not legal until 2016? Certain concepts, such as the term ‘harm’ are too abstract and contentious to use as a viable argument for or against a point of view. This is a key reason I believe Mill’s argument to be insufficiently supported. He spends far too much time referring to his harm principle, without analysing the notion in full.

However, that is not to say I disagree with all components of his thesis. Mill was not wrong when he explores the necessity for innovative and eccentric thoughts in order to advance a society as a whole. If a society infringed upon a community’s rights to free thought, speech and action, society would not only be silencing those of radical and extremist opinions, but also preventing the rectification of truth. The truth requires to be challenged, as it is only truly true if it can withstand criticism. I believe Mill is warranted to stresses the critical importance of liberty in regards to its ability to clear perception and liven impressions of truth. In its entirety, Mill’s circumlocutory essay had intriguing arguments and opinions, however it seems as though he did not express enough. Considering the essay was lengthy enough to be published as a book, he lacks total justification and insight on the points he is attempting to prove. It is for the lack of support on his thesis – rather than the concepts covered – that I believe his essay is untenable. This is not to discredit Mill’s impact on the modern world, as he has influenced and help shape the very nature of present-day democracy. Ultimately, the challenging concept of liberty remains unresolved, as it likely will for time to come.

Read more

Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill’s: a Study of How

October 21, 2021 by Essay Writer

The Connection Between Justice and Utility

In John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism, there is an evident stress between the concept of justice and the concept of utility. The connection between the two is proved by Mill at the end of of his philosophical text where he explains that overall, justice is necessary for utility.

Mill begins his explanation by introducing five key obligations of justice. First off, it is unjust for people to be deprived of their personal liberty, property, and other legal rights which all of humanity is born with. Next, it is only just that people are also given moral rights and unjust for those to be deprived of them as well. Mill states that justice is a very simple concept in which that is people who perform good acts will receive good, while those who perform bad will receive bad. In this way, Mill has justice as a clear cut concept. Also, it is unjust to “break faith” with others (45), such as failing to follow the expectations of society. Finally, Mill also creates a concept of equal law, in which being “partial” (45) is inherently unfair as everyone must be treated with the same standard of judgement. Mill believes that these concepts of justice are all necessary for a functioning society.

By saying that justice is necessary for a functioning and harmonious society, it proves that in order for there to be utility, there must be conformity to law. When laws are broken, there has been a violation of a moral right. And when someone does something that is morally wrong, they must be punished for it because people must always get what they deserve in adherence to Mill’s definition of Justice. Although, Mill does not believe that everyone has a right to generosity or kindness because people are not morally obligated to be generous or kind. People are only obligated to do what is necessary to be a good person, and they do not have to exceed this expectation. As long as one does not do anything bad, they are good. Overall, Mill proves that morality and justice go hand and hand especially with regards to utility.

Further, Mill discusses how conducting punishment is a natural response for people who have been wronged or have heard of unjust behavior taking place. People desire to punish people who have hurt them as a means of self-defense, but people also desire to punish people who they have seen hurt others due to sympathetic feelings. Mill believes that there is no necessary moral value in this response unless it will generally promote happiness rather than simply fulfill one’s personal need for justice. Mill also explains that some people think punishment is only valid when it is done to benefit the person being punished, others believe punishment is only valid when it is done to benefit the people of society, and the rest believe that punishment is always unjust. In addition, some people think that punishments should be given based on how serious of a crime was committed, while others say that enough punishment should be given so that the person will not commit any future crimes either. Regardless of what people believe about punishment, a human’s legal and moral rights must never be violated when deciding one’s consequences. Mill believes that the only way to determine what one’s rights truly are is through utility. Whichever rights promote general happiness, are the rights that overall promote utility in society.

Mill also explains that justice is never independent from utility especially in regards to morality. What is just is based off of what is useful towards the general happiness of society. Basically, people may never hurt one another nor violate one’s freedom without proper intentions and punishment must always be based on utility in order for it to be moral. Mill ultimately concludes that the concept of justice always takes utility into consideration. What is just is equal, deserving, and fair to others. In order for people to receive good or bad, it must be in regards to utility. Utility is based on what will promote the general welfare of society as a whole. And in order for there to be justice, there must be utility.

Mill’s argument is rather convincing, though of course there are flaws with his reasoning. Mill has absolute arguments when discussing concepts of justice and law, ones that may seem convincing but lack a compassionate basis. When discussing justice, Mill creates a concept that is black and white with little room for human error. His conceptualization of if a person does good then they deserve good things leaves very little room for human motive such as one found in the Heinz Dilemma. What about someone who does something bad for a good reason? The traditional anti-hero? Mill’s scale of justice leaves no room for the partiality that comes with the obligation to human emotion. While Mill offers a good theme of “justice is, and should be, blind” he does not allow for extenuating circumstances which makes his overall theory well written, but not comprehensive for the real world.

Read more

Women Discrimination as Depicted in John Stuart Mill Essay the Subjection of Women

October 21, 2021 by Essay Writer

On the Subjection of Women – Critical Analysis

The Subjection of Women was written in 1860-1861 by the author John Stuart Mill. It first appeared publicly in a pamphlet in the year 1869. Mill was apart of the British Parliament, there he noticed several inequalities faced by woman. Which not only prompted this article, but also led to his involvement in presenting the petition for women’s suffrage and he also sponsored the “Married Woman’s Property Bill”. Mill’s was considered at the time to be a devout liberalist, feminist, and committed deeply to restoring women’s equality within the society. Mill’s was considered a radical at such time, because more men were in aggrievance that women had certain roles and should be inequal in some settings (enotes,2018). Women, throughout history have been considered the weaker of the sexes, however, no testing was allowed during the time of Mill’s, and he therefore new laws must be enacted that preaches equality for all.

On the Subjection of Women Mill’s splits up his ideas into four individual chapters. On the first chapter, Mill’s comprises the layouts of his ideas explicitly for audiences. His biggest theme throughout this chapter is to explain how historically it is unjustifiable to offer some rights to one group (men), while the other group (women) are not granted the same rights. This is based solely on one’s biological composition. Such ideas are apparent to audiences quite early on in the article. When Mill’s stated: “The principle that regulates the existing social relations between the two sexes—the legal subordination of one sex to the other—is wrong itself and is now one of the chief obstacles to human improvement; and it ought to be replaced by a principle of perfect equality that doesn’t allow any power or privilege on one side or disability on the other” (Mills, page 1103, 1861). We can see here, reason to believe that Mill’s is unaccepting of the current practices of women’s lowered statuses in society and that he certainly wants changes to be made as soon as possible.

A wonderful analogy is also represented in order to get his points across. He stated instances of African American slaves were highly relatable to the current treatment of women. Such points really made me understand how women were unequal in various aspects during these times. It was not only that they could not make decisions for their families, but they also could not vote or even own things. Nonetheless, Mill’s backs up this analogy by stating how at first slaves were compelled to obey non-bindingly, however, after this was met, they then became legally bound to obey. If orders were not met, several legal courses of actions could take way over the enslaved individuals. Mill’s explains in this argument, that slavery use to be governed solely by the master-to-slave relationship. If problems arose the master and slave would work it out, however, after legality came into play, governments would step into such situations and this is when more problems surfaced (Mill, 1861).

Such courses of action could certainly be drawn to women of this time as well, as Mill tries to explain in this analogy. And for what reason, just because one was born a female. Just as Mill’s I believe it is highly unjustifiable to treat someone differently because a choice they were unable to make. African Americans did not choose to be black, and women did not have any say as to which gender they would be born, therefore, neither groups deserve to have a lowered role in society at all. Mill’s also makes the rational argument of slavery when he stated that no one really questioned the morality of such, which is exactly what he was doing at the time. He was amongst the first to see an issue with women’s equality during this time, if not, these women could certainly be in similar situations as African Americans (Mill, 1861). However, in some ways, these women were very much like slaves already. Certainly, some different did conclude, however, these women weren’t granted much freedom at all. What I mean by this is that they had little say in any family affairs and were expected to cook and clean for their husbands. Such thinking as this, almost creates a slavery type imagery in my head. Although the author is writing about times in the 1860’s, such ideas were not conceptualized till near 60 years later. What I mean by this is that although the author tries to convince individuals that women are unequal to men in numerous faucets, men did not find value in such ideas until several years following. If this does not show, even in the slightest degree enslavement, then I don’t know what it will take to convince you. Enslavement doesn’t necessarily mean that women were beaten and placed into cotton fields, however enslavement defines the traditional views of men had on women and their equality next to them.

It was not until 1920 that women would be granted the right to vote. This battle, which began with Mill’s in my opinion was not settled until 60 years later. Such discrepancies reveal that men were not ready to allow women to make such choices for society. A type of thinking that reveals, that men did not have faith in the feelings or choices that women had to offer to society. Although many individuals claim that women were considered equal after this right was given to them, sadly they are wrong. It was not until 1973, that women had equal rights to their own bodies, and had the decision to even terminate a pregnancy (Johnson,2013).

Women, even in today’s society are not treated equally, a right that Mill’s tried effectively to change. Even in the year 2013, most women will not receive maternity leave or even be paid the same wages as men (Johnson,2013). Mill’s fought long and hard to showcase why such issues are present and how they are unjust, however, even in modern times we are facing such inequalities, just in different areas. It will take men finally realizing that women are their equal counterpart for such changes to subdue.

Read more

Mill’s Utilitarianism Theory and Kant’s Theory of Deontology

October 21, 2021 by Essay Writer

The idea that actions/consequences are morally right only if and because they produce the greatest good was created by a man named John Stuart Mill. This ethical theory is called utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism since it does not judge the actions of people based on intentions. It is a way of looking at morality. Instead of looking at what actions are right versus what actions are wrong, utilitarianism looks at the results. For example, parents often tell their kids it is not okay to lie or cheat. From a utilitarianism’s point of view, a parent will look at the actions and then determine right from wrong based on what results in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In other words, an action in and of itself has no intrinsic value (neither right nor wrong). It is only right or wrong in its affect. While other elements of Mill’s philosophy may have faded away, utilitarianism is still touched as one of the three major ethical positions with Kant’s Deontology.

Immanuel Kant was a philosopher who tried to wrap his head around the fact how human beings can be good and kind outside of traditional religions. He was a pessimist about human character and believed individuals by nature intensely prone to corruption. The PHILOSOPHY: Immanuel Kant video said this led him to argue although historical religions had all been wrong in a content of what they believed, they had latched on to a great need to promote ethical behavior. It was in this context, Kant came up with the idea of the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative states, act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. Kant argues that the categorical imperative is the rule our own intelligence gives us.

A British philosopher came up with a thought experiment that involved two scenarios. In the first rescue story, some people must drive quickly to save the lives of five other people (who are nearly threated by an ocean tide). Another person needs assistance from a different disaster. However, there is no time to waste. As a result, the person driving must leave the single person to die in order to save the lives of the group of five. In the second rescue story, again some people must drive quickly to save the lives of five other people. This time, the path to drive is narrow and rocky. Along the path is an injured man. If the rescuers stop to save the lone individual, they will not reach the other five in time. The party of five will have drowned and died. In order to save the party if five, the rescuers would have to drive over the individual in the path. But they cannot do that. It sounds like the first scenario would be morally acceptable since no one would be held responsible for the man’s death. Many would argue the second scenario is not morally acceptable since one would have driven over the man and be held responsible for his death.

According to Mill’s theory of utilitarianism, he would tell the rescuer in Rescue I to leave the lone individual to die and save the five persons. He would also tell the rescuers in Rescue II to driver over the single guy and save the group of five from drowning. Based off his theory, saving the group of five from drowning would maximize happiness. Likewise, saving the group of five results in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The Principle of Utility states that actions or behaviors are right in so far as they promote happiness or pleasure, wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness or pain. We should condemn an action if it does the opposite. An action is said to have positive utility when it augments happiness more than it diminishes it.

According to Kant’s deontological theory, he would tell the rescuer in Rescue I to save the people from drowning. The moral agent is stuck with a dilemma and must have proper motive and act according to moral law. By sacrificing one life, Kant can save five lives. However, he would tell the rescuer in Rescue II to help the individual needing assistance in the path. And this would result in the party of five drowning. Kant believes it would not be morally acceptable if he himself took the life of the individual by driving over him. “I can save five lives by killing one” would be the maxim. He says, “Act only on those maxims that you can will everyone else to follow at the same time.” Basically, one should not make special rules one would not want others to follow. The second version of the categorical imperative says, “To act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and not as a means.” In others words, one should treat all persons including oneself as having inherent value and not to use people. The second version relates to Rescue II because everyone in the thought experiment needs to be treated with inherent value. Kant suggests one should not treat someone as a “mere means” because then it eliminates one’s ability to make rational decisions.

One criticism of Mill was that is perspective solely focuses on the consequences rather than taking it to affect the individual parties involved. For the sake of the greater good, he would not care to be responsible of the man in the path’s death in order to save the five lives. In my opinion, I find it unkind that he would disregard the individual person’s rights, and think their overall value less than the other five lives. One criticism of Kant is that he did not differentiae between knowledge of thoughts from knowledge of objects.

In my opinion, both Mill’s utilitarianism theory and Kant’s theory of deontology can be superior depending on the situation. In regards to Mill, there are situations where sometimes quantity overrules. I believe the lives of all are valuable but generally speaking, the loss of one life sounds better than the loss of five lives. In regards to Kant, the reason why we find ourselves doing the right thing is because it is the right thing to do. How one was raised plays a big role in what is morally right versus what is wrong. I believe the lives of all are valuable.

Read more

The Interrelation of Freedom Arguments and Health-related Issues

October 21, 2021 by Essay Writer

In this essay, different but related arguments such as stoicism and freedom, stoic critique of anger, John Stuart Mill analyzing the idea of liberty, examining the value of individual liberty and the principle of non-interference will be analyzed. We will look at how these different topics are related to individual and how it is related to health-issues such as vaccinations, body ownership, gun control, mental disorders, diet and nutrition, coronary heart disease (CHD).

We will start by first talking about stoicism and what it is. It started in Ancient Greek and it is described as an idealization of incapable of being injured and impaired to strong emotions, and an indifference to death. The stoic prescription if is that we become hopeless, it is because we keep thinking of out problems in a negative way and if we think in a different way, it will change. It is said that reasoning is a disciplined practice and the only individuals who achieved this are people who practice reason. It has been stated that things go wrong when passion rules you, and the body will deteriorate and experience pain but how we respond is still our decisions. Stoicism is an enormously complex and diverse movement in philosophy.

For example would be an individual being affected by comments of other individuals about their self (she’s not good enough or you’re fat). These are examples of judgement of others and he/she let it affect himself/herself. Individuals let it affect them by being depressed or developing lower self-esteem. Instead of doing something good about it such as ignoring or improving themselves independently, they let it sink to their minds and hence, affecting also their physical body. Another example would be, woman separated from partner who was abusive and cheated on her, she was diagnosed with depression because she says she feels miserable, anxious and pre occupied due to the failure of her relationship with him. Wanting to make it right this time and even though, the partner abused her, she still wants to get back to him as she thinks its her fault. The detachment from her partner she hasn’t mastered yet, that is why it is considered that she is not free yet.

A health – issue that could develop towards the process of having not mastered the art of detaching one’s self from negativity is mental and emotional problems which affects the physical body in long – term run. Sometimes, in affects short-term as other people couldn’t deal with struggles anymore, they commit suicide to end the pain. Mental disorders do exist and it is increasing especially it is easy to access negative feedbacks as time goes by social media usage is increasing. It is easy to type a dis-pleasant comment.

Another argument that is related to freedom and stoicism is the view of Seneca’s critique of paper about anger. It claims about humans being social creatures and work with cooperation with each other. Anger gives rise to excess and we can recognize it in everyday life. The author claims that anger is unnecessary and it does not do us good. This is connected with stoicism in freedom as it stated that having the taste of freedom means having a sense of control of one’s emotions. The elements of freedom consist of the notion of being wronged, disrespected, revenge or intimate, everyday and political realms. Life should be on with non-anger.

For example of a real life situation would be if someone has wronged an individual and this person who was wronged reacts in a inappropriate way such as seeking revenge through verbal or physical abuse. This is viewed to be not freedom as the person could not control his/her anger, which led to more damage. Hence, if a human wants to be effective, he/she has to be well trained and strategic in approaching a situation.

A health-related issue that is associated with anger is future coronary heart disease (CHD). It means in the long-term, anger has a harmful effect in physical health wise. There are evidences that tell us so, one example is Chida’s and Steptoe’s Meta – Analytic Review of prospective evidence. Their conclusion states that CHD is very much so associated with Anger and hostility and are both CHD outcomes both in healthy and CHD population.

Another argument would be John Stuart Mill’s idea of liberty and non-interference. The claim is that it is an ethical judgement and individual liberty means a person has to put it at the center of what is good or right. It is the idea of an individual celebrating his/her distinctive and different individuality. It’s the notion of choosing for ourselves which makes us human, to be able to think and to choose on the basis of our thinking. Mill also wants to emphasize that is the predominant view is wrong, it is the chance for prevailing the truth or alternative scenario and if the new claim might be wrong, but it is interesting to examine to know. It would strengthen and clarify the situation. In terms of comparing of stoicism with Mill’s ideas, John Stuart is an admirer of the stoics but has another ideas of liberty of individuality and it is the notion of “I choose the way I want to live” and that should be respected.

An example of real life situation would be people not taking medicine when they are extremely ill. Some individuals would prefer dying natural with no aided medicinal support and try to heal themselves with their own way. It might not ideal to most people but at the end of the day, it is the individual’s choice if they want to be medically aided or not. Another example would be are tattoos. Not some people would want a tattoo and some employees would discriminate people with such art in the body but Mill’s ideas apply to this, as this is an example celebrating one’s individuality.

In relation to health – issues regarding to liberty and interference, the HPV vaccination is a perfect example of it. Although it is suggested that it is vital for young girls to have it, which helps prevents cervical cancer, some agrees that they should be given a chance to choose for themselves and hopefully, made the right decision. However, some suggest that it should be all girls below 12 years old as it is for their health but Mill’s idea would come in and ask, who are you to say what do I do with my body? The compulsion and non-interference idea, which it is legal to convince or use power for the good of others, implying is against the will of an individual for the protection of others has its point.

Another argument is libertarianism as a framework, which put individual freedom as a pre-eminent value. It is a matter of right and it is the notion of, if an individual loves freedom, he/she hates the states. People are free in a natural world and there’s a world of society that humans are not entirely free. The problems of the natural world, is that, it is bad because of violence. The powerful might walk over to the less unfortunate. However, a society, which is not natured, has protection, that’s all the society idea is for.

For example, there are things that individuals do not like living in a society such as paying expensive taxes and sometimes it is unjustified of the state’s doing. Libertarians claim that these things are not right and we own our own bodies and we make our own decisions. Comparing it with stoicism, it has a similarity of being able to control of oneself if freedom but different in a way which the states are involved besides one’s emotion. Libertarians dislike the idea of paternalism (nanny state) and this means the state do things for the society without asking consent from the citizens of such environment. “How can a person lose the right to his body? By being deprived of the freedom to care for it and to control it as he sees fit”.

An example would be the recent Florida shooting. There is a debate that some think it is better that guns should be banned and some think this is a way of taking away the freedom they have. Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice-president of national rifle association thinks that the alternative should be to use gun better, not banning them. It is the notion of using freedom on important topics such as this. In relevance to health-related issue, using the example of gun posession, there is a trauma that is heavily built to each of the victims of gun shooting and the worst is death. If there violence that is attached to guns, in health wise, it will negatively impact the people who are involved with such situations such as the recent Florida shooting.

Another argument would be the concept of libertarian paternalism and choice architecture. There point is that the meaning of freedom is, it is good to choose. The main point that is implied is people are capable of reasoning but a lot of the time we don’t use our full capabilities to have good reasoning. This is where real implications in some sense that some people have no chance to do good. Humans being self maximize and arguing what we value and we get it. The notion that humans have cognitive bias and blunders, there’s two- brain system which is automatic and reflective. Automatic is the things we do, we just do it without to think. This is human behavior of creating a habit. Reflective is when you stop and think first before doing an action. The libertarian wants to say that everyone should do what they like. The idea of try to influence people’s choices but try to work around it and respect individual’s choices. The concept of designing the context to encourage healthy option, paying attention to small details and encouraging virtues acts. Easy picking to default options, would work and if a person have to choose another, they have to do something active to get it.

For example of a real situation would be in supermarkets. For their marketing tactics, they use the art of visualization. The goods that they want to bough first are at eye level (different customers, different tactics). Chocolates are placed on a kid’s eye level because they know it will attract them. Another nudge example would be is when it is good to provide guidance such as giving a feedback. You get the ideas if you are in the right track. Another one would be reminders. In clinics and hospitals, patients tend to forget due to busy schedules and this might potentially risk other patient’s health or their own. Hence, a simple email, text or call could be a benefit, not only to the patients, but also to the medical staffs.

In relevance to health-related examples, having to give an informative/genuine/honest feedback to someone will be helpful and could increase productivity or happiness. A simple compliment or constructive criticism could be vital to an individual’s growth and self-esteem hence, healthier mental health. Also, plan of errors could affect an individual’s health. It is really vital in he health-care sector as for example making mistakes about medicine is crucial and could cause death to patients so hence, is it important that there is an emergency plan.

Analyzing these few arguments about freedom, it is clear that there are ideas that have their own points and connected to each other. For example, stoicism is concentrated on that human freedom is predicated on the exercise of reason and that emotional disturbance can be avoided or remedied through the disciplined practice of reason. As we saw with the Stoics, John Stuart Mill and the libertarians, a vital point can be placed on the potential of people to freely reason, and choose for themselves. However, it might be observed that people do not always realize this potential and that actual everyday choices are often far from reasoned. This is the starting point for the work of Thaler and Sunstein, which is having individuals, hitting them with a (good) nudge would have to happen that allows every person to create their decisions. However, should let themselves aware of what is a good or bad nudge.

In other ways, these different arguments, is relevant to our health. We will be concerned with the meanings of freedom and how this relates to matters of health, justice and individual wellbeing. It is important to analyze the points and views. Seeing it in a non-biased way, to be able to comprehend what is really freedom. Also, how would it affect an individual’s health, whether in a negative or positive way. For example, in stoic mind, one should be able to control their feelings and do not show emotions that can affect their wellbeing negatively. This is also related to the concept of anger, which is, if not controlled can do harm to individuals. However, being angry is a normal reaction for humans if there are situations that trigger this emotion.

Freedom is always seen as when individuals can do whatever they want and by that, there could be consequences such as abuse, violence and harmful things they can conflict in themselves and other people, primary value, non-dominating, do not always make rational sense, etc. but is that really freedom? Perhaps, studying these kinds of arguments is an eye opener that freedom itself has many different concepts. In conclusion, as discussed, given examples of real-life situations and health-related issues, it is clear that Freedom and philosophies has indeed given a significance of freedom for health and wellbeing.

Read more
Order Creative Sample Now
Choose type of discipline
Choose academic level
  • High school
  • College
  • University
  • Masters
  • PhD

Page count
1 pages
$ 10