critically examine the political thoughts of John Stuart Mills and evaluate his views on liberty.?

Answer 1

John Stuart Mill: On Liberty (1859)
John Stuart Mill, one of the foremost nineteenth-century spokesmen for liberalism, advocated Utilitarianism in ethics, i.e., the view that we should each act so as to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Yet he was a champion of individual's rights, calling, among other things, for more power and freedom for women. In his treatise On Liberty he argues that in the past the danger had been that monarchs held power at the expense of the common people and the struggle was one of gaining liberty by limiting such governmental power. But now that power has largely passed into the hands of the people at large through democratic forms of government, the danger is that the majority denies liberty to individuals, whether explicitly through laws, which he calls "acts of public authority," or more subtly through morals and social pressure, which he calls "collective opinion."

What does Mill mean by "the tyranny of the majority"?


The aim, therefore, of patriots was to set limits to the power which the ruler should be suffered (1) to exercise over the community; and this limitation was what they meant by liberty. It was attempted in two ways. First, by obtaining a recognition of certain immunities, called political liberties or rights, which it was to be regarded as a breach of duty in the ruler to infringe; and which if he did infringe, specific resistance, or general rebellion, was held to be justifiable. A second, and generally a later expedient, was the establishment of constitutional checks, by which the consent of the community, or of a body of some sort, supposed to represent its interests, was made a necessary condition to some of the more important acts of the governing power. To the first of these modes of limitation, the ruling power, in most European countries, was compelled, more or less, to submit. It was not so with the second; and, to attain this, or when already in some degree possessed, to attain it more completely, became everywhere the principal object of the lovers of liberty. And so long as mankind were content to combat one enemy by another, and to be ruled by a master, on condition of being guaranteed more or less efficaciously against his tyranny, they did not carry their aspirations beyond this point.

A time, however, came, in the progress of human affairs, when men ceased to think it a necessity of nature that their governors should be an independent power, opposed in interest to themselves. It appeared to them much better that the various magistrates of the State should be their tenants or delegates, revocable at their pleasure. In that way alone, it seemed, could they have complete security that the powers of government would never be abused to their disadvantage. By degrees this new demand for elective and temporary rulers became the prominent object of the exertions of the popular party, wherever any such party existed; and superseded, to a considerable extent, the previous efforts to limit the power of rulers. As the struggle proceeded for making the ruling power emanate from the periodical choice of the ruled, some persons began to think that too much importance had been attached to the limitation of the power itself. That (it might seem) was a resource against rulers whose interests were habitually opposed to those of the people. What was now wanted was, that the rulers should be identified with the people; that their interest and will should be the interest and will of the nation. The nation did not need to be protected against its own will. There was no fear of its tyrannizing over itself. Let the rulers be effectually responsible to it, promptly removable by it, and it could afford to trust them with power of which it could itself dictate the use to be made. Their power was but the nation's own power, concentrated, and in a form convenient for exercise. This mode of thought, or rather perhaps of feeling, was common among the last generation of European liberalism, in the Continental section of which it still apparently predominates. . . . (2)

In time, however, a democratic republic came to occupy a large portion of the earth's surface, and made itself felt as one of the most powerful members of the community of nations; and elective and responsible government became subject to the observations and criticisms which wait upon a great existing fact. It was now perceived that such phrases as "self-government," and "the power of the people over themselves," do not express the true state of the case. The "people" who exercise the power are not always the same people with those over whom it is exercised; and the "self-government" spoken of is not the government of each by himself, but of each by all the rest. The will of the people, moreover, practic-ally means the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people; the majority, or those who succeed in making themselves accepted as the majority; the people, consequently may desire to oppress a part of their number; and precautions are as much needed against this as against any other abuse of power. The limitation, therefore, of the power of government over individuals loses none of its importance when the holders of power are regularly accountable to the community, that is, to the strongest party therein. This view of things, recommending itself equally to the intelligence of thinkers and to the inclination of those important classes in European society to whose real or supposed interests democracy is adverse, has had no difficulty in establishing itself; and in political speculations "the tyranny of the majority" is now generally included among the evils against which society requires to be on its guard.

Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulg-arly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting (3) persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant--society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it--its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with indiv-idual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.

Answer 2

In many respects, he certainly was forward thinking. And he came into conflict with his father, philosopher James Mill regarding the status of women. However, he was also very much a man of his times. Consider: “Like a man when he chooses a profession, so, when a woman marries, it may in general be understood that she makes a choice of the management of a household, and the bringing up of a family, as the first call upon her exertions” And he wrote this despite also writing (in the same essay "The Subjection of Women"): “Men hold women in subjection by representing to them meekness, submissiveness, and resignation of all individual will into the hands of a man, as an essential part of sexual attractiveness.” Where he departed most strongly from his father (who was also a very liberal thinker for his day) was in his support of women's suffrage. Where James Mill considered women's vote redundant, reflecting the same interests as her husband, the younger Mill recognized that the interests of husband and wife might well diverge.

Answer 3

Mill was a philosopher who dictated Nineteenth Century liberal thinking and created modern concepts of political philosophy.

Mill was the son of philosopher James Mill and the godson of Jeremy Bentham who brought up the young Mill with the explicit aim of creating a genius who would implement the cause of Utilitarianism. In his Autobiography, Mill describes the extraordinary education given to him by his father and Bentham. Mill started to learn Greek at three and at eight years old, he could read Plato and other philosophical works in the original. He read various works on history and had even mastered the basics of arithmetic. At the age of ten, he was familiar with the works of Adam Smith and David Ricardo and wrote papers with his own views on the factors of production. At the age of twenty-one, Mill suffered a mental breakdown.

Mill ascribes his illness to the gruelling study programme which left no room for spirituality. He took to reading the works of Wordsworth and the ‘cloud gradually drew off’.

Mill worked for a brief period at The British East India Company and later entered Parliament. He was the first ever parliamentarian to call for women to be given the vote. He called for proportional representation, single transferable votes and extension of the franchise to the working class. Mill married Harriet Taylor after a twenty-year courtship. Harriet reinforced his advocacy of women’s rights prompting him to write On The Subjection Of Women, an early feminist tract. Mill’s great work was On Liberty, in which he lays down the important principals of political philosophy. He stated that people should be able to engage in any activity they wished as long as they did no harm. He stated that the purpose of government is to remove barriers to freedom. He argued that free speech was vital to ensure political progress and that false opinions should not be suppressed as they would wither naturally in a climate of free expression. Mills argued that without free speech, beliefs would become dead and we would forget why we held them.

Harriet died in 1858, whilst on holiday in France and was buried in Avignon. Mill was distraught. He then spent half of each year in France so that he could be near her grave. Mill died in 1873 in Avignon and is buried next to Harriet.

Answer 4

Critically examine your books and do your own homework!!!

Answer 5

its like mayavati and mulayam s yadav ultaa pradesh india

Answer 6

That's your job