Role of Society in John Stuart Mill - Essay Example

Task: John Stuart Mill In any civilized society, there are basic parameters that guide its citizenry in their daily duties. Similarly, these duties are guided by the need to achieve certain objectives and goals of life, such as proper education and good health. However, in order for these rules and regulations to be obeyed, there must be an autonomous government that ensures people follow the rule without using any favor in its administration (Bowie and Simon 56). Therefore, this essay is going to support the crucial role played by society in ensuring citizens enjoy their liberties, freedoms and happiness, as advocated by Mill in his two books On Liberty and Utilitarianism. Furthermore, the paper takes note on case studies, such as the Hudnut Pornography Case and its interpretation by Mills. Concerning Mill’s On Liberty, we have two distinct interpretations of matters related to liberty and freedom. There is harm’s principle and how the citizens perceive it in the view of the government. According to Stuart, the harm’s principle state that a person may be prevented from transferring harm to others to avoid any disagreements. Therefore, we will begin by evaluating the issue of freedom and liberty from the Mill’s perspective. In any civilized society, Mill suggests in On Liberty that there must be a government body that ensures its people is controlled in a systematic way. This is through proper exercising of freedom and upholding of the rule of law (Mill 23). As argued by Mill in his book, the government must act in an autonomous manner, to avoid being influenced by majority opinions to ensure that the system of governance runs. Similarly, when the government is in control, it is able to ensure that it represents every voice of the citizenry. This means that the minority groups that are not influenced by selfish ambitions and personal convictions who do not speak are equally represented, in the matrix of national cohesion. Additionally, the control of the government symbolize a state of control where cases of unrests, protests and demonstrations that are characterized by the discontented lot of the majority. However, as posited by Mill in Utilitarianism, it is upon every ordinary citizen to derive his happiness from the circumstances presented by his government (Mill 12). This means the citizen should obey the law, pay taxes, remain patriotic and respect other fellow citizens. Alternatively, this does not mean the government has the force upon the citizenry in any conventional way of conducting their duties. Furthermore, the government is mandated to allow citizens to enjoy their fundamental rights and freedoms as a way of upholding the rule of law. On that account, according to Mill, even if citizens follow the stipulated the laws, the government should use democratic methods that uphold citizen liberty. In other words, citizens should be allowed to make their choices in whatever they do as long they do not fringe on the freedoms of others. Similarly, Mill supports this fact in Utilitarianism where he encourages the freedoms of choosing one’s form of happiness as long as it is of no damage to other parties or individuals (Winston and Edelbach 154). Alternatively, the government should allow citizens to experiment with any form of lifestyle in attaining their goals and objectives of life for the betterment of the general society. However, again Mill warns in On Liberty that the government and even society have a crucial role to use coercive force in case a citizen violates the limits of his freedom. This brings us to issue of public opinion and the obligation of the government to censor distracters, such as the opposition, which sometimes wastes time debating trivial matters at the expense of the economic development. Mill argues in On Liberty that the government has the supreme authority to ignore such voices or even apply a form of punishment to act as a deterrent for others who may have such sinister intentions (Bowie and Simon 60). Similarly, the government, while controlling the amount of liberty and freedom that the citizens enjoy, has to provide effective governance, proper infrastructure and treat diseases so that a state of happiness is retained in the society. On the flipside, there is the interpretation of the happiness theory. Here, citizens have the liberty and freedom to choose their kind of things that bring them happiness. In this aspect, the citizens should enjoy their societal obligations and autonomy of actualizing the theory as advocated by Mill in Utilitarianism. This means they have the right to use their votes to select effective leaders and government who will expand their freedoms through provisions of basics needs (Braybrooke 90). Similarly, the citizens should be exorcised of the opinion that leaders with a specific religious affiliation have the capability of providing effective leadership. Mill argues in the Principle of Liberty that society has made it a law to judge character on the mode of societal pressures which is not the moral truth. He continues to advise the citizenry on assessing the virtues of its potential leaders and not religious background before electing them. Alternatively, in any setting of the community, the citizens should try to live according to their personal doctrines irrespective of societal expectations as long as such doctrines do not contravene the freedom of others. This brings to the point of choosing tyranny or democracy in the form of governance for the citizenry. Here, it is imperative to observe that citizens are entitled to governance that brings them happiness (Feng 87). It means the methodology of deriving pleasure lies in the actions of the citizens while considering the issues of morality and virtue as the guiding factors. On the other hand, if an individual decides to choose tyranny as his preferred choice with the mind perceiving it as the ultimate happiness, then such a citizen should not be stopped. The community or society should only guide the person against predisposing others in harm’s way. This guidance should be conducted considering that everyone has his perceptions and opinions on what is considered universal truthful especially in conventional societies (Braybrooke 97). According to Mill’s On Liberty, individuals should always respect the ideas, theories and opinions of others considering that God created people in a unique way, and, hence, persons cannot be the same. This brings to light the need for society to make justifications for its actions when confronting the reigning government concerning the need for rights and freedoms. On that perspective, Mill asserts on the paramount accountability of citizens through actualizing their happiness and pleasure in the scope of their voting out bad leaders and replacing them with better ones. Alternatively, it justifies the point of choosing their desires such as pornography, rebellion, complete isolation from society so that such individuals can meet their inner self-peace. Similarly, in supporting the fundamental independence in his actions, Mill analyses the actions as the critical justifications of behavior “…the tyranny of majority was at first…” (Mill 22). While making references to behavioral sciences and the sociology of being, he concurs in Utilitarianism that a forward and reverse action of humanity that compels him or her to continue seeking the freedom of solitude in a society, where there is an authority to control that objective. Therefore, concerning the interpretation of my choice, I would go for the first interpretation, which justifies the authority of the government on its people. There are several reasons to support this. For example, when the government is allowed to control the liberty and freedoms of the citizens, there are several advantages that the populace stands to enjoy. These include expanded room for achieving their personal goals and objectives, better economic and political development, effective education for the existing generation and increased happiness and pleasure because of the above advantages (Mill 45). Mill backs this in Utilitarianism where he points out, if the government works for the people, and then they are bound to attain the happiness. Similarly, the choice of the first interpretation suits the existence of the modern century where cases of social unrests are rampant. By this, I insinuate that in order to prevent the compact majority from abusing power in the disguise of agitating for democracy, the government should apply coercive measures, as advocated by Mill’s in On Liberty. This is attainable through the use of severe jail terms, hefty fines and confiscation of property to act as a deterrent to other revolutionaries. In addition, the choice of having the government in control ensures there is limited marginalization of the minority who do not have a voice on national matters. Furthermore, this control helps in attracting foreign investors who find a stable country where the government is in complete control of how its run. On the same vein, when the government administers all the functions of the state, there is bound to be a choice in matters such as religion (Winston and Edelbach 137). As protested by Mill’s in On Liberty about morality and virtue of a leader, the citizens will be able to distinguish between a fallacy and effective leadership. This also helps in strengthening the code of individuality amongst citizens, as everyone is encouraged to adopt his or her doctrine in their daily activities. Similarly, the government acquires the ability to work on other development projects of the society that aim at helping the society in advance. Unlike in the second interpretation, where the citizen calls the shots, in this case, the government enjoys the complete authority over all choices. This means that people are the subjects to their masters, and they are barred from meddling in government policies through unwarranted opinions, which are characteristic of suffering democracies. In other words, as championed by Mill’s On Liberty, it is better to have a tyranny where citizens receive their fundamental needs such as food, water and shelter on a daily basis than a democracy where there is starvation (Mill 59). This point also means use of violent suppression against a few is justified, if deemed by the government, to derail economic and political progress of the economy. Alternatively, the choice of the government autonomy prevents it from making mistakes that can be detrimental to the citizens in attaining their happiness and pleasure. On that account, I think it is not right for people to speak hatefully of one another. This is because, according to Mill’s On Liberty, he advocates for the right of an individual, to practice what he wants. In other words, the author insists on allowing individuals to live according to their doctrines without coercing them into conventional societal obligations “…actions are right…to promote happiness, wrong…to produce…reverse happiness” (Mill 21). On that note, the individual should not breach the freedom by interfering with the happiness of others. Similarly, it is justifiable to observe that there are limits that are controlled by courts in every country. This means in democratic countries enjoying unlimited freedoms of speech and association, violation of such freedoms has a sentence in a court of law. In other words, there are courts that act as guards, to ensure that offenders of the freedoms enjoyed do not interfere with the pleasure of others especially in the sustenance of the economy. This means these limits concur with what Mill talks about in On Liberty as to permitting individuals with a restriction not to breach the freedom of others. According to his interpretations of the choice of happiness, it is upon the individual to do what is right irrespective of the pressures of the societies, such as laws and regulations. This means the courts should not convict a person on the wave of public opinion but on the violation of set laws of the country. Similarly, I feel we do not have a right to express a political idea at any time because of many reasons. Based on epianinism, it depends on where a person is and the time of the political activity. In epianinism, an individual should be able to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures and how Utilitarianism affects higher pleasure. There are instances when a government as the supreme authority has banned political opinions on the ground that they may fuel violence and animosity among it is people (Feng 89). That is why if the idea is violent or undemocratic, it goes against the requirements set forth by Mill in two books, namely, On Liberty and Utilitarianism, because that is a violation of other people’s happiness and rights. Additionally, this is the case study where Mill advocates the use of coercive force in countering an offender who decides to injure others on the grounds of exercising their freedoms. Alternatively, political speeches can be limited through civic education by cautioning citizens against acts that jeopardize the peace of others. In terms of viewing pornography, again it is a matter of choice. This depends on the personal beliefs, values, and concepts that guide a person. As advocated by Mill in his book On Liberty, society should not force people to conform to what it deems right. This means despite the popular opinion that watching pornography is wrong; an individual has the right to enjoy his fancies as long he does not rape or sexually violate others because of his behavior (Winston and Edelbach 156). The Supreme Court’s Community Standards’ doctrine trace back to one interpretation made by Mill in the sense that people have what they feel is right in the society. In other words, when the Supreme Court has a standard, it means other members of the citizenry enjoy their fancies when they contravene the community standards. Similarly, Mill calls this the act of reverse happiness because Utilitarianism is deemed as a godless doctrine that enables citizens to do as they feel. Therefore, we can say that the lower court in Hudnut did not violate that doctrine because it only defended the right to watch pornography. In other words, in the Hudnut case, the proponents argued that only unless pornography violated the rights of women, as reflected in the American Constitution through the depiction of women as sexual objects or symbols who take pleasure when inflicted with pain, then an action should be taken (Feng 76). Alternatively, the gross representation of women as persons who enjoy being raped or can be easily dominated and violated is well defended by Hudnut case and it is supported by Mill’s On Liberty with the assertion that any freedom should not violate that of the others. On that context, the court would trace its ideas back to the interpretation of Mill on several grounds. For instance, Mill suggests that society should not dictate individuals on any conventionality as long as such personal ambitions do not infringe the freedoms of others. On the same length, the court has the obligation to give a verdict following the teachings of Mill in order to uphold community standards stipulated by the Supreme Court (Winston and Edelbach 140). However, there is an imperative need for legal scholars and experts to work on safeguarding the welfare of the majority instead of just following the distorted views of Mill which critics have said are obsolete with the new generation. Furthermore, society should be educated on the dangers and repercussions of watching too much pornography in order to safeguard their productivity in achieving happiness. In conclusion, we can say an individual on any societal setting except on the grounds chooses the choice of liberty and happiness, if it violates the freedom of others. Additionally, the factor of religion should not be forced upon the society as a parameter of effective leadership but instead virtue should be encouraged. This means religion should not be used as the ultimate test, and this applies to other institutions that leave man bound to societal obligations (Winston and Edelbach 134). Works Cited Bowie, Neil, and Paul Simon. The Individual and the Political Order: an Introduction to Social and Political Philosophy. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008. Print. Braybrooke, David. Utilitarianism: Restorations; Repairs; Renovations: Variations on Bentham's Master-idea that Disputes about Social Policy Should be Settled by Statistical Evidence about the Comparative Consequences for Those Affected. New Jersey, NJ: University of Toronto Press. 2004. Print. Feng, Yi. Democracy, Governance, and Economic Performance: Theory and Evidence. New York, NY: MIT press. 2005. Print. Mill, John. On Liberty: John Stuart Mill's 5 Legendary Lectures on Personal Liberty. New York, NY: Megalodon Entertainment LLC. 2010. Print. Mill, John. Utilitarianism. Easyread Comfort Edition. New York, NY: ReadHowYouWant.com. 2006. Print. Winston, Mark, and Reid Edelbach. Society, Ethics and Technology. Mason, OH: Cenegage Learning. 2011. Print. Read More