John Stuart Mill says that he wants to examine the influence of society or government on people's lives. Human civilisation has been defined from time immemorial by a battle between freedom and authority that leads to the notion that freedom implies freedom and protection against tyranny or oppression.
The consequence has historically been the creation of representative governments by certain groups (including Americans) and elected leaders, who hold transitory jobs and may be removed from office if society wants them.
If this is in the greatest interest of society in general, the government is entitled to intervene in individual lives. This implies that the government – or society – may intervene if a person's activities hurt or risk in any way harming others.
However, individuals have full authority over their choice and actions in respect of individual behaviour (just as long as they don't infringe on the rights of another person). In addition, this restriction applies only to adults that are reasonable, not to children. Mill argues that individual freedom implies that everyone has a right to develop and express their own ideas, to select their own courses in life and to gather with others for any other purpose other than to hurt others. However, society attempts to restrict freedom and uniqueness by forcing individuals to adhere to public opinion, by law or by promulgating unfavourable views on those who do not comply. Mill recognises that the entire issue of freedom is wide-ranging so that he limits the themes he examines to individual freedom — individual thinking or acting, and control society has (or should have) over individual life.
Mill claims that the discussion time is gone (or at least he wants to be) on the need of press freedom and shifts his focus instead to how individuals develop their own views—or not if they believe they need to accept prevalent opinions. Mill says that society is trying to suppress unpopular views in order to preserve the status quo, but is in fact in danger of harming itself. When society silences a viewpoint, it takes a chance to debate a fresh concept that may really be true and assist society to better itself. On the other side, it stops society from debating why the view is incorrect and how the finding supports the validity of other ideas when it is not true. More significantly, open debate of different views is essential to the health of a society since it helps to avoid mechanical compliance with ideas and traditions, rather than real comprehension of them. This involves hearing critical views that are welcomed, which help individuals uncover hidden truths that may enhance their life.
Mill believes it is one of the chief virtues of humanity that people can change and adapt when they receive a better way of living, but it is even possible to do this only if people are free to discuss their mistakes, to get the first-hand experience and to hear the arguments in favour of diverging opinions. In addition, regular debate and even arguing over the validity of an idea is essential to keep this opinion's significance alive in the minds of others.
Although a variety of views is so important to society and the ability to speak about them, individuals today continue to be punished for holding beliefs against the majority. These punishments are not as severe as before — no one is killed for holding a divergent view — but Mill fears that because of the growing prominence of religion in English culture they may get harsher. If someone finds a viewpoint immoral, for instance, the individual holding an opinion may suffer social shame or even legal punishment. Unfortunately, this type of punishment promotes an atmosphere for real mental independence, because more and more individuals are shunning their own thoughts out of fear of developing a heresy.
This fear in turn inhibits people from expressing different ideas that may include a core of truth that would benefit society in general in combination with accepted views. Finally, Mill opposes the notion that legislative restrictions on expressing ideas should be imposed, but public opinion itself may punish someone for being malevolent in sharing their views.
Having shown that the ability to develop, express and debate views is essential for the health of a society, Mill turns his argument to the importance of individuality. Mill thinks that the fundamental danger to uniqueness is that people are usually indifferent — that their worth to personal and public pleasure is just not understood. At worst, individualism is seen as a societal ill that might disrupt the existing order. Nevertheless, no one thinks that individuals should adhere mindlessly to norms that govern appropriate social conduct and development. Mill thinks that uniqueness is a fundamental element of human nature whereas compliance is against nature. If individuals submit mindlessly to the tradition, they stop thinking; when they stop thinking, they eventually lose the capacity to think for themselves.
While previous civilizations tried to make individuals manage their individualities enough to obey societal norms, contemporary civilization confronts the opposite issue, attempting to persuade people to cast off their customary yokes and adopt their uniqueness. Many individuals just do not think for themselves or follow their own natural inclinations, and much of what constitutes a human being—energy, creativity, independent thinking, and so on—risks of neglect. More significantly, the individual is intimately connected to uniqueness, an essential aspect of societal growth and the development of new ideas and behaviours. Mill argues that nobody in principle would argue on this issue, but more often than not they really reject it because they are struggling to comprehend it. In contemporary society, mediocrity has acquired dominance rather than creativity. This does imply, however, that uniqueness is needed more than ever. And Mill urges readers to embrace their eccentricities and originality instead of concealing them in order to maintain social harmony.
Mill discusses how much power society ought to have over individual life. He claims that all individuals should be free to behave as long as their acts do not harm anybody else, but also points out that it will result in natural consequences to take part in activities or behaviours that are disgusting to others. For example, individuals will choose to avoid, and advise others to avoid, persons whose behaviour, even if not unlawful, is usually objectionable. In this manner, society punishes individuals for making bad decisions deliberately, but Mill believes that society is justified to punish people for violating the rights of others by disappointing or exploiting them. In addition, although a person does not damage others directly, they may be punished for damaging other people or society as a whole indirectly, e.g. when a person gambles their money away instead of paying bills or caring for their family. However, in these situations, it is essential to distinguish between punishing someone for the damage they create and not for conduct itself (after all, spending money is not in itself immoral; it only becomes so when it negatively affects someone else). In situations when no one but oneself suffers – no matter how painful it may be – society has no right to intervene or punish them.
Mill provides an illustration of several applications of the concepts of freedom and individuality he explores in order to assist readers to find out how they may really be implemented in real life. He says that his overall philosophy may be summed up in two maxims: that people are solely responsible to society for their acts that impact other peoples and that the person might be punished for hurting others by society. However, society is not always warranted in intervening for an injured party, e.g. by losing an employment promotion or competition, individuals are often hurt. But that does not imply that the winner of these things should be penalised if they are not using malevolent methods to win.
Trade is a good area in which to apply Mill's ideas - it is a social act and thus comes under the authority of society, but it also largely includes the individual freedom of the buyer. In order to investigate power society, Mill focuses on the selling of poisons. For a valid purpose, a buyer may purchase poison, yet there is always the danger of a killing. Given the legal use of poison, the government should not ban its sale entirely, but it is warranted that it is harder to acquire by forcing vendors to maintain a thorough record of who and when to purchase it. It does not pose an issue for individuals who purchase poison for legal purposes, but it may discourage persons who want to conduct a poison murder since it creates a trail of paper to prosecute them for the crime. Likewise, advising is a social activity that should not be restricted by society since it is still protected via individual freedom and promotes personal welfare—people should be allowed to offer advice, debate views or assist each other choose course of action. The only time that counselling is legitimately susceptible to societal intervention is when the counsellor derives a malevolent or selfish profit (perhaps a financial gain). Moreover, one individual should not have too much freedom over another, as in the case of slavery.
Youtube Lecture: On Liberty John Stuart Mill Summary in Urdu/Hindi
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank You For the words Please if you have any problem let me know and Don't forget to share and Log into Our Blog.