The of the Supreme Courts Decision Regarding Hobby Lobby - Case Study Example

Section/# John Stewart Mill and the Issue of Personal Liberty: The Case of the Supreme Court’s Decision Regarding Hobby Lobby The difficulty, some might even say absurdity, of attempting to utilize JS Mill and his utilitarian principles that are revealed in “On Liberty” to the situation of the Supreme Court’s decision concerning Hobby Lobby are concentric upon the fact that the very ideals of utilitarianism and the importance that Mill places upon the independence of the individual flies directly in the face of what the Affordable Care Act (ACA and also commonly referred to as ObamaCare) is attempting to foist upon the population at this particular point in time. Yet, rather than concluding their discussion with a broad platitude that states that John Stuart Mill would had been opposed to the Supreme Court’s recent decision (five – four in favor of allowing Hobby Lobby to define its own healthcare provision), the following analysis will instead represent a point by point discussion for why this particular analyst believes that John Stuart Mill would have engaged with this issue in the way that will be represented. It is the hope of this particular student that the reader will gain a more informed understanding both with respect to the Supreme Court’s decision, its constitutionality, level of democracy, and the degree and extent to which John Stuart Mill would have agreed with such a choice. After even a cursory reading of John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty” it is clear and apparent that Mill has an extraordinary fear for what he terms as the “tyranny of the majority”. This occurs under a situation in which utility of an individual is reduced as a result of the fact that a tyrannous majority determines what is in their best interests for them. Within the modern era, we would refer to such a dynamic as evidence of a “nanny state”. However, in terms of utilitarian ethics, this is an egregious offense; due in part to the fact that individual such as John Stuart Mill viewed one of the hallmark qualities of democracy as being the ability for self-determination – both in an individual sense and with respect to the entire nation. Another relevant consideration concerning John Stuart Mill’s understanding of the Hobby Lobby ruling is with respect to what John Stuart Mill refers to as subverting the interests of the individual for the greater good. This is part of the previous definition of tyranny of the majority; however, it takes place on and more individualized level can impact upon the degree and extent to which happiness and freedom can be exhibited within the life of the individual. On a micro scale, this particular process decreases the overall amount of liberty that an individual is able to exhibit; thereby creating what John Stuart Mill refers to as an “undemocratic” system. As can be seen from the information that has thus far been presented, many individuals point to John Stuart Mill’s utilitarian ethics as the first exhibition of libertarianism. As such, John Stuart Mill was of the opinion that less government power and more personal responsibility was the key to ensuring that democracy was preserved and individual liberty was maximize. A further complement of John Stuart Mill’s philosophy that would have engaged him towards appreciating the Supreme Court’s ruling is contingent upon his belief that free markets were preferable to those that were controlled; either by a select group of individuals or by a government. As such, the Affordable Care act (ObamaCare) represents the codification of the way in which a controlled market will ultimately operate. This is due to the fact that Obama care has as its ultimate goal the desire to regulate and control the entire medical community with respect to what can be charged and with regard to the way in which patients can and will be treated. Within such a dynamic, John Stuart Mill would have obviously indicated that a far more preferable approach would be one in which the individual consumer could integrate with the market and choose a service or product that is best designed to their specific needs. The personal freedom aspect of the economy serves as a fundamental approach the John Stuart Mill represents time and time again within his philosophical interpretation of what can be considered as morally right and what can be considered as morally wrong. A further criticism that John Stuart Mill faces has to do with the fact that his approach to freedom, liberty, and individual rights are highly idealistic. As with any ideology, it is necessary for the individual to understand that the way in which John Stuart Mill attempts to promote his ideals are within the universal context. As such, is necessarily somewhat idealistic by its very nature. Nonetheless, Mill states, “If all mankind, minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, that he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind” (Mill 29). As one can easily see, Mill does not shy away from the universal application of this particular philosophical paradigm. Instead, he engages with it and seeks to define a society that would silence the liberty or self determination of a single individual as egregious and in a sense – wicked. Another hardship that exists with respect to the application of Mill’s philosophy to the case of the Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby has to do with the fact that John Stewart Mill said hardly any time within his writings discussing women, minorities, or children. As such, with respect to the case that is fundamentally predicated on the rights of women and issues pertaining to reproductive rights/childbearing, it is somewhat inappropriate to apply John Stuart Mill philosophy concerning this. However, from a more categorical and universal standards, the one that has been promoted throughout this paper, we can be understood John Stuart Mill would most reasonably distance himself from the application of federal standards and enforcement that the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) has attempted to foist upon the individuals living within the United States. Naturally, a complete analysis of John Stuart Mill is neither possible nor relevant within an essay of this particular link. However, it is relevant to consider an alternate approach. Individuals would argue against the information that has been presented thus far would invariably point to John Stuart Mill’s discussion of “performing no harm” as proof that he would have disagreed with the information that the Supreme Court ruled upon in the Hobby Lobby case. However, performing no harm must be understood within the philosophical context of the other directives that have already been spoken to. Beyond this, performing no harm would likely not be understood in the context of giving power to a tyranny of the majority as a function of ensuring the needs of a select majority of individuals. Accordingly, John Stuart Mill’s approach to the issue of Hobby Lobby is one that would have considered the issues of economics, personal responsibility, liberty, and the tyranny of the majority first and foremost. As such, the consideration that has been listed lastly within this analysis would only rank as an aside. Further, in reply to the above criticism, it can definitively be stated that the democratic principles and liberty that John Stuart Mill were not in any way, shape, or form similar to an expectation of the economic world ruled by the majority. Instead, John Stuart Mill fundamentally opposed this particular constructs and warned against it throughout much of his career. At one point, Mill states the following within this text On Liberty: “The form of association, however, which if mankind continue to improve, must be expected in the end to predominate, is not that which can exist between a capitalist as chief, and work-people without a voice in the management, but the association of the labourers themselves on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they carry on their operations, and working under managers elected and removable by themselves” (Mill 48). They need to define personal liberty within the context of being able to determine one’s own self-interest and act upon them was something that Mill saw as fundamentally a part of the economic sphere and the degree and extent to which liberty could be affected within society. Although Mill was not opposed to taxation, he was opposed the means by which democratic principles could be utilized to impact negatively upon individual liberty within the economic sense. Although it is impossible to completely divorce bias from the information that has thus far been presented, it is the understanding of this particular student that John Stuart Mill’s point of view has adequately been represented within this brief analysis. The core concepts of philosophy relating to the way in which democracy should be organized and the role that individuals towards the group, and vice versa, are clearly denoted within John Stuart Mill’s “on liberty”. As such, this particular text has been utilized as a fundamental basis for understanding the case in question and relating John Stuart Mill’s approach with respect to maximizing utility for all individuals within society. Work Cited Mill, John S. On Liberty. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Penguin Books, 2008. Print. Read More