On Liberty Essay examples -- essays research papers

Analysis & Critique ofJ.S. Mills On conversancy          The perception of acquaintance has been an issue that has bewildered the human race for a long time. It seems with every aspiring leader comes a new definition of familiarity, some much realistic than differents. We have seen, though, that some tend to have a win of what accepted liberty is. One of these scholars was the English philosopher and economist J.S. Mill. Mills On Liberty provided a great example of what, in his opinion, liberty is and how it is to be defended. In this essay we will examine Mills ideals concerning liberty and point out a few things he may non have been realistic about.      For Mill, liberty is defined by, "the nature and limits of the power of which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual." Mills stance is that society can step in only when the action of the individual causes harm to others. Interfe rence for any other reason is unwarranted and only hinders the development of society as a whole. When these liberties be preserved the end result is freedom, and true freedom, according to Mill, is engage ones own good in which ever way they deem fit, so long as it doesnt bring harm to others. And here in lies the problem, It is human nature to believe that you are right and the other is wrong. This concept, which seems to be thorny wired into all of us, leads to the disapproval, which leads to anger, which in turn leads to suppression. This is the one thing that mustiness be avoided. Across history there are examples of government, or society, acid the voice of opposition. Though we may speak up we are right, that doesnt give us the right to keep others from expressing their own opinions and ideas.      To take away an individuals ability to think and feel for itself is to rob them of the greatest part of being alive. Along with that you are robbing yours elf of the knowledge that they posses, which is retarding your growth as a person. According to Mill, we dare not quiet the voice of opposition for there is a good prospect that that voice is correct. The truths of life are an ever evolving concept. Things that were thought to be true have falling time and time again, and if we are honestly nerve-wracking to find out these truths we must listen and argue every ... ...t would be structured kindred, with the three branches and currency. Mill has more of an ideal that he would like to project onto a society. Both believe a governments priority is to protect the freedom of its citizens, and if it does not accomplish this then it is the populations duty to relieve it of its power.      I myself agree with a lot of what Mill says. We do need to allow people express themselves even when what they say and do angers us. For what we say and do my anger them just the like, and no one would like to be silenced. perime ter is a virtue that we all need in our everyday lives. still the problem is implementing this into a society that preaches free speech, but doesnt always cover charge it up. People here dont want to hear those who oppose. Though we dont directly weaken their voice, we dont take the time to hear what they have to say. Now isnt that in the similar ballpark as suppressing someones ideas, not taking the time to hear the ideas and to breed educated opinions of them. "If a tree fall in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Wouldnt that same thing apply to someone talking and nobody listening?