Short Paper for Philosophy #2
AKP
PHL106paper2AakilPatel.docxPatel|4
ON LIBERTY
On Liberty
Aakil Patel
Professor Eduardo Frajman
PHL 106-GW1
Short essay assignment
John Stuart Mill’s thesis is that the struggle between liberty and authority is the most salient feature of the earliest histories of Greece, Rome and England. He argues that the struggle was initially between the subjects (the ruled) and the government (the ruler). He then briefs on the rise of liberties by patriots as the power of the rulers was considered dangerous. He comments on the authority of the society vis-à-vis individual rights and liberties.
John [Mill] argues that the rulers were in most histories (save for the popular governments of Greece) engulfed in an essentially antagonistic position to the subjects or the people they ruled. The rulers were mostly from one ethnic tribe who obtained power through either conquests or inheritance and did not enjoy popular mandate and pleasure of the ruled. Their dangerous power was considered a necessary tool for oppressing the weak subjects.
The patriots therefore had to come up with limitations on the powers of the rulers to avert oppression to the ruled. John says the patriots did this through two ways. First, they attempted to obtain a recognition of some irreducible minimums or immunities, which are political rights or liberties. If the ruler infringed these liberties, it would be regarded as breach of duty and general resistance or rebellion would be justifiable. Second, they attempted to establish constitutional checks whereby a representation of the people or some institution had to participate in decision making with the ruler. The first model of limitation was complied with by most European countries but the second was opposed.
John argues that as human affairs advanced, people felt that the rulers must hold power at the pleasure of the ruled, which power is revocable at their will. This measure was to keep the rulers on their toes to avoid abusing power to their disadvantage. The patriots desired that the rulers be associated with the people, and that their interests and desires be aligned with the nation's. The people's will is described as the most numerous or active segment of the population the majority or those who succeed in gaining acceptance as the majority.
According to John Mills,[Mill] the aspect of tyranny of the majority is an evil that is entrenched by the rulers. The society needs to be on the watch. A society itself can be tyrant over the separate individuals who form it. Such tyranny of the society maybe much worse than political oppression by public functionaries and the individuals need to be protected. There should be a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence to protect people from political despotism.
John feels that a society’s rules of conduct have their foundation on the society’s norms. He argues that likings and disliking’s of a society determine the rules laid down for observance, with punishment at law. There have been misgivings about whether a society’s likings and disliking’s should bind individuals as law. There have been instances where rights and liberties of individuals have been justified on merited grounds of principle as against the society and the claim that societies exercise authority over individual members has been disputed and is in controversy.
In conclusion, John Mill tries to demonstrate how liberty and authority have engaged each other at the battlefield. There are gain, loses and compromises for each. REFERENCES.
· Mill, John Stuart (1860). On Liberty (2nd ed). London: John Parker & Son.
· You read this book? You didn’t use our textbook??? Why?????
You are summarizing here a story that we did not discuss in our class. We are looking at Mill’s argument regarding freedom of the individual in society. You need to explain that argument clearly, using quotes from the text to support your claims.
Grade 2/5
