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

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

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
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
The paper discusses the concept of utilitarianism from a number of different angles and pays heed to writers such as John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. The paper discusses the concept of rights and whether or not utilitarianism does fail as a theory of justice and whether or not it prioritises collective welfare over the individual.

From the Paper
"John Stuart Mill was also a strong advocate of utilitarianism, but he took a slightly different view to Bentham. In one of his most famous works "Utilitarianism" he differed from Bentham's views, he supported a view of utilitarianism that saw the individual not just as enhancing welfare but behaving in such a way that would enhance so that they could enhance their own welfare. However this view of utilitarianism still arguably treats people as producers of welfare rather than individuals and it still suppresses the interest of the individual underneath those of collective welfare. John Charvet discusses this when he says, "As disinterested moral agents men must treat each other, in respect of their potential for producing pleasure and pain." "

Tags:bentham, mill, rights, welfare

Abstract
This paper explores the issues of how best to understand liberty and equality as political goals and individual freedoms. It argues that to strive for both as is often quoted by politicians, is in many ways self defeating within current societal norms, as with increased individual liberties there will often come increased inequality. For the purpose of style the terms 'liberty' and 'freedom' are used interchangeably throughout the discussion. The paper also ties in the opinions of key theorists.

From the Paper
"Berlin makes the point that within the conception of liberty there is an inherent conflict. Specifically he makes the point that Mill's argument is based on the idea that all men are rational, that they would therefore come into conflict only if one were acting irrationally and that all arguments are made up of the rational confronting the irrational (Berlin 2007 p.56). In other words that Mill's conception of liberty is grossly over simplified and does not take into account the reality of society or the repercussions of his own conception of liberty, whereby, with increased individual liberties available to them, men would come into greater competition with each other, in a rational self interested way (as per the will of their individual liberty) and inequality would result (Berlin 2007 p.56). Therefore based on this line of thinking it would appear that the with enhanced individual liberties there is likely to be greater inequality as people come into 'natural' competition or behave irrationally. "

Tags:mill, marx, friedman, engels, communism, libertarianism

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
Freedom of expression is one of the crucial ideas, if not the crucial idea, behind modern concepts of liberty and democracy. This paper discusses the issues surrounding the limitations on free speech with reference to John Stuart Mill, John Rawls, Thomas Hobbes and other philosophers.

From the Paper
"This issue of whether and to what extent to curtail free speech has a clear role in that most historical significant of liberal documents, the American constitution. Its first amendment prevents the executive or Congress from passing legislation which curtails freedom of expression, freedom of the press or the right to openly petition the government for any grievance. The United States, does, of course have a slightly contrary relationship with freedom; for all its commitment to "life, liberty and happiness" it took until the 1960s to get rid of institutionalised racism, and it still lags behind Europe in its attitudes on gay marriage and abortion. However, of most relevance to this essay is the Patriot act of 2001, which sought to use the power of the state to curtail unnecessary liberties which created fertile ground for terrorism."

Tags:hobbes, rawls, democracy, philosophy, civil, liberty, rights, islam, terrorism