John Locke And John Stuart Mill

’s Definition Of Freedom Essay, Research Paper

John Locke and John Stuart Mill’s Definition of Freedom

John Locke believes that man ought to have more freedom in political

society than John Stuart Mill does. John Locke’s The Second Treatise of

Government and John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty are influential and potent literary

works which while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinkers ideal

state present two divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom.

John Locke and John Stuart Mill have different views regarding how much freedom

man ought to have in political society because they have different views

regarding man’s basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as

the ends or purpose of political societies.

In order to examine how each thinker views man and the freedom he ought

to have in political society it is necessary to define freedom or liberty from

each philosophers perspective.

In The Second Treatise of Government, John Locke states his belief that

all men exist in “a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose

of their possessions and person as they think fit, within the bounds of the law

of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man. ”

(Locke 4) Locke believes that man exists in a state of nature and thus exists

in a state of uncontrollable liberty which has only the law of nature to

restrict it, which is reason. (Locke 5) However Locke does state that man does

not have the license to destroy himself or any other creature in his possession

unless a legitimate purpose requires it. Locke emphasizes the ability and

opportunity to own and profit from property as being necessary to be free.

In On Liberty John Stuart Mill defines liberty in relation to three

spheres; each successive sphere progressively encompasses and defines more

elements relating to political society. The first sphere consists of the

individuals “inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscious in

the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom

of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific,

moral, or theological.” (Mill 13) The second sphere of Mill’s definition

encompasses the general freedoms which allow an individual to freely peruse a

“…life to suit our own character; of doing as we like…” (Mill 13). Mill

also states that these freedoms must not be interfered with by “fellow creatures,

so long as what we do does not harm them…” (Mill 13), no matter how odd,

offensive and or immoral they may seem to others. The final sphere of Mill’s

definition of liberty is a combination of the first two. He states that “…the

freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others: the persons

combining being supposed to be of full age, and not forced and or deceived.”

(Mill 14)

Locke and Mill’s definitions of freedom must be qualified. Since the

definitions they present in their respective literature are distinct from one

another, when each philosopher refers to freedom or liberty they are not citing

the same concept. This distinction is necessary when comparing their positions

regarding the amount of freedom man should have in a political society. What one

philosopher considers an overt an perverse abuse of liberty the other may

consider the action completely legitimate and justifiable.

John Locke believes that men should be virtually unrestricted and free

in political society. Locke’s rational for this liberal position lies in the

twin foundation of man’s naturally good inclinations and the specific and

limited ends Locke believes political societies ought to have. According to

Locke the only freedoms men should lose when entering into a political society

are “equality, liberty and executive power they has in the state of nature into

the hands of society.” (Locke 73) In Locke’s ideal society this fails to limit

or remove any freedom from the individual, it only removes the responsibility of

protecting these freedoms from the individual and places it on the state.

John Stuart Mill believes that man’s should be strictly limited in

political society. Mill differs from Locke in the basic principle that

individual who enjoy the benefits of living in political societies owe a return

for the protection society offers. Mill believes for society to function

properly conduct of societies members should “not injuring the interests of one

another; or rather certain interests; which either by express legal provision,

or by tacit understanding, ought to be considered rights” (Mill 70) Mill

furthers this statement by proclaiming that society may go even further. “As

soon as any part of a person’s conduct affects prejudicial the interests of

others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the general question whether the

general wel

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать