WEEK 11: Mill's "On Liberty" Chapter 2 and 3 and "Utilitarianism" Chapter 1 and 2

[Mateo Duque]

Class,

This week we are finishing up Mill's "On Liberty" and moving on to his more explicit treatment of ethics, "Utilitarianism." I like my students to read "On Liberty" to get a feel for how and what Mill thinks. Many students read "Utilitarianism" without context, that is, without knowing that Mill has a strong commitment to liberalism and political freedoms. When one reads the prescriptions of Mill's Utilitarianism that: the individual should act for the greatest happiness for the greatest number it can sound like something from a communist, or socialist state.

Something I want to investigate is: is there a contradiction between Mill's position in "On Liberty" and the one in "Utilitarianism"? If there is why? What are the elements in tension? On the other hand, you may think that there is no contradiction, however, then the question is: why not? Why and how can the two works be seen as somehow complimenting each other?

-Mateo Duque.

[trinimjs]

Chp. 2 Mill on Liberty 

            I agree with Mill when he said “We can never be sure that the opinion we are trying to support is false.” (Pg11) because we all have an opinion, we all have liberty in this side of the world which is Democratic.  We are fortunate to have an opinion there are some people in other parts of the world who cannot express what they feel because  there opinion do not count there liberty has been taken away from them for example Cuba which is under a dictatorship government.  Because Mill has placed a high value on freedom in my opinion due to liberty; and opinion can be reasonable or unreasonable; every Democratic state or Country has a cap on liberty, this is why we have laws in the land so liberty can be controlled. Out of liberty becomes your opinion and everyone has an opinion it is neither true or false.

 

[Duvall Ledbetter]

"When people who are fairly fortunate in their material circumstances don't find sufficient enjoyment to make life valuable to them, this is usually because they care for nobody but themselves" (Mill Utilitarianism pg 9)

 

I agree and disagree with this quote on happiness by Mill. I agree in the sense that you have some people who are not appreciative of the things they have in life such as family, friends and daily necessities such as food and clothing. These people tend to always want things they never have and are not satisfied by the things they do have. Enjoying life never comes to their mind and they often have something wrong with themselves. However, I disagree with the fact that this is always the case. You could have a person who wants to find enjoyment in their lives but they seem to always fall off the wagon. This could be because of a bad experience or personal surroundings. That person doesn't necessarily just care for themselves. They always have to reflect back to their story of tragedy while enjoying life.  This person can have everything in the world but there's a small part of them that is missing.  

 

I wonder what Mills true definiton of happiness is. I believe that we really don't see a real answer to this question during the first two chapters of Utilitarianism. He just says happiness depends on the individual.

 

[laquintaclark]

"Only while the world is in a very imperfect state can it happen that anyone's best chance of serving the happiness of others is through the absolute sacrifice of his own happiness; but while the world is in that imperfect state, I fully admit that the readiness to make such a sacrifice is the highest virtue that can be found in man."

The self sacrifice is practiced everyday in one form or another. This work and On Liberty do compliment each other because Mill talks about us as people helping one another. On one hand it is a duty almost for us to take responsibility of each other and make sure there are no wrong doings to others even if we practice wrong doings to ourselves and on the other hand we sacrifice our happiness for a moment to help out our fellow man, no matter what that sacrifice is. I understood both his works and wonders if Utilitarianism is a follow-up to On Liberty, although they are very different but both is focused on human behavior not just as an individual but with the respect to others as well.

[iriejam796]

Mills on liberty thinks that people should have the right to express their thoughts and opinion. "If an opinion were a personal possession of no value except to the person who has it, so that being obstructed in the enjoyment of it was simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the harm was inflicted on only few persons or on many." Mills think if people stay silent and not express their thoughts and ideas then they are not doing themselves and society any justice.  They will never know if that idea or thought would be the one to save the world or another person's life. Everyone is entitled to their opinions whether it be true or false and they should be given the chance to express themselves freely and openly. Who are we to criticize and judge another persons opinion especially when it comes to religious beliefs?  Mills accepts the fact that opinions should be valid but when it comes to actions he thinks it should be limited, especially when it causes harm to others. 

Mill on utilitarianism talks about moral theory and give many examples of how it is viewed. "The lack of clear recognition of an ultimate standard may have corrupted the moral beliefs of mankind or made them uncertain."  Mankind are often misunderstood about what is considered morally right or wrong and that is why we have laws that govern the land.  Mills think that doing what is morally right will bring happiness and pleasure while doing what is wrong will bring the opposite. Mills says one would have to had experience different levels of pleasures to really know what utilitarianism is. 

[lrwilen4]

"He has felt that the only way for a human to approach knowing the whole of a subject is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all the ways in which it can be looked at by every kind of mind." Mill states that one who speaks and voices his opinion with confidence has the ability to speak with confidence due to three reasons. stated above is the third reason, which i strongly agree with. when a person verbalizes their own thought they are essentially verbalizing a mixture of experience and impressions. now, when a person talking acknowledges that in all their life they will never have the same thoughts as someone else and therefore goes and inquires on a variety of opinions and studies what he is saying, the person will gain the intellect to be able to converse intelligently on a subject  just to be clear, i feel that there are 3 parts to having the ability of speaking smartly on a subject 1) acknowledging that you need the opinion of others 2) receiving excepting/listening to the opinion of others 3) incorporating the opinion of others into your own opinion. I think it takes a humble and modest person to actually be like this. most people lack the ability to listen and gain from what others may say. one of the biggest lessons gained from mill is to be humble and open to hear what others have to say. 

[sharifa]

“Human beings have higher faculties than the animal appetites, and once they become conscious of them they don’t regard anything as happiness that doesn’t include their gratification.” (Mill, Utilitarianism)

In regards to humans trying to obtain happiness, this statement is true. We can have all the necessities that many people may not have, but if we do not have it exactly how we want it, we will probably be unhappy. We are never satisfied with what we have. Sometimes humans can lack the acceptance of the way things are with their lives and are always striving for more. There is always something that we may want, even if we have it all. It’s what makes us distinct from other animals, and why we are able to prosper and grow intellectually better than any other living thing; we are always thriving for more.

[jossianny(jossy)]

"He who lets the world choose his plan of life for him doesn't need any faculty other than the ape-like ability to imitate" (Mill, pg.38).

" The judgement of those who are qualified by knowledge of both must be admitted as final-- or, if they differ among themselves, the judgement of the majority among them" (Utilitarianism, pg.7).

Mill on liberty focuses on the freedom of humans. He talks about how even though we should learn about the past, we should also experience it for ourselves. He says that individualism is very important and with out it there would not be new ideas.We may do as we please as long as we do not effect other people.  But as i was reading Utilitarianism individualism seem less important, he still keeps a sense that free thinking is important but the old achievements or philosophical thoughts are important as well and we should know them.     

[racquelallwood1987]

I totally agree with the first half of the quote ""When people who are fairly fortunate in their material circumstances, don't find sufficient enjoyment to make life valuable to them" because in our society today people who tend to have alot of wealth tend to do drugs or commit crimes.  I usually thought that people who are fortunate would be happy and do positive things for people to emulate thhem.  Instead you see fortunate people unhappy in their personal life which tend to intervene in thier professional life.  For example in the media, all you hear about are celebrities taking some kind of drugs and have to go to rehab or driving drunk.  These are examples that shows how people who are fortunate don't find sufficient enjoyment to make life valuable for them, but rather to make life much more difficult and miserable.  

 

But what is a person's true definition of happiness?   Everyone seems to find happiness in totally different ways!!!

[taniki0108]

When Mill's speak about "actions are right in propotion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness," I have some mix emotion on.  Happiness to me or to you? People have their own meaning of happiness.  For some people happiness if for everyone not just yourself, while others take pleasure or happiness in seeing someone else miserable.  Mill's is saying that happiness is the ground work of morality, and that happiness is all that people desire, but if that's true couldn't it mean happiness by any extent.  Meaning that people will do wahtever they can to promote their happiness not the happiness of the other person.  Unless he's saying that happiness should be ethical as in doing onto others as you would have them do unto you, then I'm all on board for that.  I maybe confused with what he is saying, because to me he is not staying on one side of the fence, he's back and forth with what utilitarianism really is.  I think than happiness is way more than what he think it is and that if we were to use it as ethics this world would be crazier than it is today.  I do like the theory but I don't think it would be effective.  A lot of people have problems in determining what is right from what is wrong so if you are telling them, that if its make's them happy and bring them great result or pleasure them they are going to choose their pleasure over someone elses.

[jimborat69]

Everyone is for their self-interest.  Our main declaration of independence comes from the idea of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”. As we can see by words, Life means us, Liberty is our freedom and pursuit to Happiness is Utilitarianism.  These are good things to have if we can be satisfied in the middle. What I mean is when someone has too much liberty it becomes bad. This person does bad things because he/she thinks there are no consequences for his/her action because of freedom. Like what we have in the news nowadays, bombing here, killing there because of freedom of speech, having gun and etc. This is the bad side of using their freedom for themselves instead of being part of the society or helping the society. The other way is pursuit to Happiness “Utilitarianism”. Like the people who creates the tax rules, somehow somewhere all the changes in the tax law will benefits most his/her family or friends. My point being too much of rights goes south or bad.

[staceydavidyants]

"Men’s views—both for and against—are greatly influenced by what effects on their happiness they suppose things to have; and so the principle of utility—or, as Bentham eventually called it, ‘the greatest happiness principle’—has had a large share in forming the moral doctrines even of those who most scornfully reject its authority." (Mill, p. 2) 

I absolutely agree that the basis for many moral decision lies in the happiness of the outcome. As humans, we seek to better ourselves and our positions in life and we base our moral principles on that a lot of times. When an action leads to making us happy, we see it as being good, but when the outcome is unhappiness, we tend to stray away from making the same decision again. Sometimes, we understand that necessity for there to be a long and hard road in order to finally reach true happiness in your goal. In that case, while we could have been unhappy some of the time, working tirelessly and not giving, when all is done, the end satisfies the means. This general principle can apply to all of humanity since the beginning of time, as it is an innate characteristic that we do what we can to make ourselves happy, and with that we continue to survive. There cannot be one general moral rule that governs all men, as people are different and some are good, while some are considered bad. But internally, each person lives by a moral standard of doing what makes them happy; it is only the means of happiness that differs greatly from person to person. The question I would like to ask is how can we characterize a person's moral code as being good or bad? 

[staceydavidyants]

"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool or the pig think otherwise, that is because they know only their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides." (Mill, p. 7)

With this statement, Mill is saying the person best capable of judging the quality of a pleasure is the one who has experienced both the high pleasure and the lower pleasure. The person with more experience has more of a right to judge the quality, and the fool is only satisfied because they don't know any better. While the fool is satisfied, they are content with what they have, while Socrates is dissatisfied and strives for more. It is better to be discontent and seek for a higher pleasure to fulfill your life, whether that be a relationship, a job, a family, or whatever else makes person happy. Being content is an empty emotion if there is truly much more out there that you could be aiming for in order to reach true happiness. Being happy will always trump being content, since being content means just being satisfied, but not really knowing what else is out there. I'm sure there are people who would disagree and say that being content is good enough, as the content person doesn't feel a void, but I would say that content is not enough, in order to be happy you must have really experienced what else is out there. 

[tayo.ojudun]

I can't believe this is the same Mill that wrote on Liberty, I can hardly comprehend his message in "Utilitarianism". I did have some difficulties with his piece on Liberty, but not as much as I had sorting through this one. Something very random within this reading was what caught my attention. 

"Few human creatures would agree to be changed into any of the lower animals in return for a promise of the fullest allowance of animal pleasures;" (Mill 6 )

It's funny that Mill would mention this. I've actually given this idea some thought once or twice before and I'm pretty sure others have to or I would at least like to think others have. I think to myself "what would it be like if I was a squirrel or bird or any other animal on this earth (insects excluded)". Would life be more simple? Would it be the same? Would I have less worries? Are these animals people's reincarnated selfs? Maybe I'm a little weird for admitting this. 

Mill goes on to say "•no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool, •no educated person would prefer to be an ignoramus, •no person of feeling and conscience would rather be selfish and base,". Mill's break down of choosing to be an animal over a human being is a bit extreme. It makes it seems as thought wanting to be anything, but yourself means you are a fool, an ignoramus, selfish, and base when necessarily that may not be the case. This idea of wanting to get away is the exact reason why people travel, why people dream, why people live, why people act. Contentment in your current situation doesn't imply that you are intelligent, educated, or a person of feeling and conscience; it simply just means you can hold your ground. It takes a very special/unique person to choose contentment over ultimate happiness, I'm sure if I would be able to do it. 

[Carmen Wang]

(1)  Education and opinion, which have such a vast power over human character, should use that power to establish in the mind of every individual an unbreakable link between his own happiness and the good of the whole; especially between his own happiness and the kinds of conduct (whether doing or allowing) that are conducive to universal happiness. (Utilitarianism, p. 12)

 

Mill believes that utilitarianism seeks the greatest happiness for other people, which can only come from an intellectual mind. A well-learned person will understand about people and its relation to the world, and is interested in the pleasure of others, while someone who does not have an education will prefer to live their life for their own selfish and sensual pleasures. In addition, people who develop an educated mind will help them to develop the inner quality of good motives which usually is not forced by the law, but becomes their character of which they are when they interact with people. I agree with Mill that education influences our human character, such as learning the morals of what is right and wrong so we can develop and ingrain that kind of goodness in our minds from childhood to adulthood. I find that this is what is lacking in today’s education, and children these days lack such character that people no longer have. If parents do not teach their children morals, at least an education will help provide that means to do good in society. But if we have failed to do that in education for our children, we have fail society as a whole. For example, there are many kinds of problem going on in school, such as students bullying one another and even murdering one another. This affects not only the children, but family members. If only we were taught to treat each other with kindness, love, and goodness, we will not take away the happiness of others.

 

What would children today, and the future of tomorrow would be like if we continue to take God out from education? He is the One who gave us the standards in good moral character of who we should be like.

 

 

(2)  It is often said that utilitarianism makes men cold and unsympathising; that it chills their moral feelings towards individuals; that it makes them attend only to the dry and hard consideration of the consequences of actions, leaving out of their moral estimate the personal qualities from which those actions emanate. (Utilitarianism, p. 14)

 

Mill considers the “mental disposition” or what one’s motives are in their action that determines whether their action is right or wrong. Men who are forced by law to do good, is only concerned with the consequences that pertains to them if they do not do good, perhaps going to prison for murder. They never so are able to develop a personal virtuous character that comes naturally by honestly wanting the good of others. I agree that motives are really important to our actions because sometimes we do good because that is how we want others to see us, or we do good because we fear the consequences. For me, my true motives will be revealed by God one day in judgment, whether they are good or not. I believe my motives are not always good, but I repent and God helps me to do it with the right mind and heart. Humans cannot naturally do good in everything with the right motives, it can only come from above because He is light, and in Him, there is no darkness at all.

 

If a world is outwardly doing right things, yet we are not inwardly changed with the right motives, how then should we instill such good character in people’s mind today? Do you think such lack of character in today's society, not just in U.S. but in other countries is the cause of poverty, crimes, and other problems?

      Comparison on “Liberty” and “Utilitarianism”

Mill on “Liberty” and “Utilitarianism” does seem to have a common theme that compliments each other, and that is inner virtue. Both systems of government, whether it is democracy or utilitarianism, it desires to do good to man and society, and pursues excellence in goodness by analyzing any error in our judgment that fails to do good. For liberty, the government system establishes laws in favor of the people, but it also needs measures to prevent the majority beliefs to dominate the minority. For utilitarianism, it desires people to care not only for themselves, but to desire the good of everyone. However, he thinks it is important for people to cultivate the right motive in character that results in good actions, because an action can be good with the wrong motives.

[Linda Chen]

The rational position for him would be to suspend judgement, and if he doesn't settle for that, he is either being led by authority or doing what most people do, which is to adopt the side to which he feels most strongly drawn to"(pg 23) On Liberty

I agree with Mills in not silencing a person's opinion. It is only fair to allow a person to speak freely. After all, freedom of speech is supported by the American Constitution. In terms of America, our nation is founded on these very principles which allows us students to express our opinion in this blog. 

"That's because the utilitarianism standard is not the agent's own greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether"(pg 8) Utilitarianism

But when it comes to the pursuit of happiness, there seems to be a limitation. For instance we can not leave the country without permission from immigration. It may be pleasing to us to find happiness elsewhere in the world or even to go on vacation, but there are limits on our freedom. Happiness for every person has it's own meaning. Some people love physical objects such as cash and tangible objects, while others like being loved and appreciated. Whatever the situation, happiness is interpreted differently. But when happy must be stopped, it must be for a fair reason. For instance keying people's car may cause happiness to a person who enjoys seeing misery on others. This type of happiness is deemed unacceptable in our society, therefore stopping the freedom to pursue happiness. 

Mill's On Liberty and Utilitarianism contradicts each other where he values freedom of opinion in On Liberty, and discredits certain freedom of happiness in Utilitarianism. 

[Givan]

Mill Basically thinks happiness is the right action out of a set of choices, which produces or creates the highest level of happiness. He also thinks happiness is nothing more than a ratio that is “pleasure to pain.” I’ve contemplated on this thought quite a bit, and I came to the conclusion that I do agree with mill in some cases; However, I do disagree with him in other instances. For example Throughout generations we all have stumble upon individuals who acquire their happiness from inflicting pain upon others, that is Hitler, Osama etc. Base on the utilitarianism theory I will be attempting to justify Hitler, and Osama malicious ways, then we as individuals will decide whether or not this theory, is one we are willing to accept.  First I will provide numerical value to the greater happiness principle ratio, which is “pleasure to pain”; let’s say for every pain inflicted upon someone our happiness or pleasure doubles. So basically what this is saying for an individual to acquire ultimate happiness, this will be due to the suffering of the innocent. This totally explains why Hitler and Osama killed effortlessly. They were getting ultimate pleasure from their malevolent acts. After all inflicting pain is what fueled their happiness. To the everyday person they actions may seem unjust but in their minds they are making the right choices to ensure their happiness, well that is if they are using the utilitarianism theory to justify they actions. 

[kenlyv]

In those who have a strong sense of dignity, their dignity is so essential to their happiness that they couldn’t want, for more than a moment, anything that conflicts with it. Anyone who thinks that this preference takes place at a sacrifice of happiness—anyone who denies that the superior being is, other things being anywhere near equal, happier than the inferior one—is confusing two very different ideas, those of happiness and of contentment. It is true of course that the being whose capacities of enjoyment are low has the greatest chance of having them fully satisfied ·and thus of being contented·; and a highly endowed being will always feel that any happiness that he can look for, given how the world is, is imperfect.

I agree with mill I believe that a person who is content do have a greater chance of being satisfied and also a greater chance of happiness even if the happiness seems low. Because if the capacities of enjoyment or happiness are low than their expectation of happiness or enjoyment are also low, which mean if that person find something a little more than what they expect will basically fulfill more than just what they feel is content, it their true happiness.

[abe]

It is to be hoped that there is no longer any need to defend the 'liberty of the press' as one of the protections against corrupt or tyrannical government. No argument, we may suppose, can now be needed for this:
No legislature or executive whose interests aren't exactly the same as the people's should be allowed to tell them what to believe or to decide what doctrines or arguments they shall be allowed to hear.

This aspect of the 'liberty' issue  has been so often and so triumphantly enforced by previous writers that there is no need for me to make a special point of it here. Though the law of England regarding the press is as servile today as it was three hundred years ago, there is little danger of its being actually enforced against political discussion, except during some temporary panic when fear of revolt drives ministers and judges from their proper course. Generally speaking, it isn't likely that the government in a constitutional country, whether or not it is completely answerable to the people, will often try to control the expression of opinion-except when by doing so it expresses the general intolerance of the public. Let us suppose, therefore, that the government is entirely in harmony with the people, and never thinks of coercing anyone except in ways that it thinks the people want. But I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion, whether directly or through their government. The power of coercion itself is illegitimate. The best government has no more right to it than the worst. It is at least as noxious when exerted in accordance with public opinion as when it is exerted in opposition to it. If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and that one had the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he would be in silencing them if he could. You might think that silencing only one couldn't be so very wrong.

thank you!! mill has mentioned something extremely important. there really is no freedom of press in the states, as much as we'd like to believe otherwise.... status quo=consolidated conglomerated massive media, stations mostly affiliated with each other, creating an illusion of choice, when in reality, everything we hear and see on the radio and 'news', ( i'd rather call it gossip). i think our laws are somewhat outdated and even if we were to rally for an outcry on massive media, massive media corporations have had a lot of say as to the very officials in public office (slandering, endorsing, etc). there should be some sort of regulation passed, but to me, it'll never happen in todays congress, no chance in hell. and no the solution shouldn't be a state tv, or local tv, a la tyrannical governments but something needs to be done.. this is coming from someone who started reading the daily blues and post-a-toast at age 10... it's like reading the same paper except the former is for second graders while the latter is solely for pre-kindergarten students. SILENCING ONE is EXTREMELY WRONG, no opinion should be stifled. this is something, i've had an extreme opinion on ever since i've educated myself as to the current state of affairs within media...one of the solutions i've thought up of is, some sort of freelance journalist website, where we have journalist grads/interns from every state going out and about for news as they're funded merely by donations of readers (whether it be residential space, transportation, monetary backing, etc..) people seriously sacrificing their lives for the sake of honest journalism. and then we'd have another 6 teams of journalists, working for news in other continents... it'll be extremely hard to set up of course, with no backing and no support, but there really are almost no credible news sources today.. the world needs people willing to take risks so that the truth has a chance of being unveiled.. public distrust in the media is at an all time high, thankfully, with due cause, so at least we know the people aren't believing everything that's being written/said. but still, they definitely sway public opinion, and that's the biggest issue today. the fact that you are exposed to them, yourisk the chance of being subliminally swayed to the left or right of w..e the topic may be.

I've had my own take for some time now, primarily on Mills dissertation of media, government and liberty. It is a thing of beauty, given that the Supreme Court has broadened the scope of the First Amendment in protecting the freedoms of speech and press from censorship by any government entity, isn't it? and that pearl act obama enacted in 2010? ohhh how much has changed,, all for the greaterr good! From the feds down to your local precinct. But really, how much "press" or "impartial coverage" are we receiving? When you can be censored or banned from any site because someone deems your perspective unfitting? Regulations need to be enforced, laws passed, strict provisions barring stations from teaming up. merger after merger has led to a consolidated, conglomerated, mass media system.///...the people truly believe they are receiving varying opinions, when in reality, it COULD all be, really, essentially, one main opinion with some tweaks here and there...

when every media source an individual is exposed to throughout the time of his/her life (whether it be print {newspaper, magazine, books}, recordings {dvd, cassettes, cartridge, cd, etc}, cinema, radio, television, internet, mobile phones) is either affiliated with, or simply possessed by a select few whom also happen to attend an annual meeting with many of our "elected officials" you know something is wrong in this world. this is your case, mr. american. When you have a wide array of stations to select from, but in the end, you feel as if all stories are eerily similar...r..in 1983, 90% of american media was owned by over 50 companies. even then that was bad.. do you suppose it got any better?..  now......when you're on espn watching a final four game... and you decide you're gonna flip to abc and check out the local news.... but then you tell yourself, im in the mood for some music and flip to mtv.... but you don't like jay-z so you go down some till bet is on, and you're jamming out to that new trey track...... but then the next song is just so wack, so you go up some more, hit cmt, and you're intrigued by the thought of taylor swift, so you let it rest for a bit... and you go on with the rest of your saturday doing the same damn thing, as many americans do... isn't it scary that all of this could've been influenced, orchestrated, conceived by one person?? it really is scary, just the fact that it is a complete possibility. for sure, it was all given the green-light by one person. when a single man owns the top newspaper in 3 continents, isn't it time for serious change? media monopoly... who wants to play? wish i was old enough...

until there is some serious legislation presented by an anti-lobbyist congress member, who has his few ardent supporters that vow to never let go... by a member with a backbone, one who refuses to budge on principles.. if he/she somehow manages to garner the requisite votes from members of the chamber who're sick and tired of failing their respective constituents, the very same members who've probably taken lump-sum donations from the very same people who own these corps(never really gonna happen).. until this happens, there probably never will be change.. there just needs to be some sort of regulation..everything we hear, see and think of as somewhat important to our daily lives, will continue to be controlled by a few... and it's not the way it should be, really.... yet again, i haven't the slightest clue as to the real solution. but i am sure, there is a serious problem.

[racquelallwood1987]

In class we spoke about the three regions of Liberty

(1) Inward domain of consciousness should be able to express themselvess once again without the harm of someone else.

(2) Taste and pursuits basically says you have the right to want what you want to enjoy without harming others.

(3) Freedom to unite and come together

 

I totally agree with these three regions of liberty because one ought to be able express themselves, want what they want, and be part of a majority group if they choose once there isn't any harm being done to anyone.  Being that there isn't any harm to anyone I feel that a person should be able to do what they choose; socially, politically, or religiously.  Everyone is there own invividual so they have the right to choose if it doesn't disrupt the function of the world.

[m.inam.gul]

"that towards which every human being must ceaselessly direct his efforts, and on which especially those who design to influence their fellow men must ever keep their eyes, is the individuality of power and development"

The concept of individuality and the power of development is one that really fascinates me. The idea that we could have easily been born really anywhere in the world, with a different religion, different customs and different culture. Even though the likelihood and chance of that actually happening is great, its interesting how we still cling on to our own beliefs/culture and uphold them as if there is no other. Mill in chapter three says we need a diversity of people, different groups and personality. And that you shouldn't just follow a track that has been previously lied out.

I believe with diversity comes innovation and thats something that we need. I also agree that we shouldn't feel like trapped in a cage, just following a pathway. We should be more creative and innovative. I sort of blame America's school system for producing lack of creative students. In comparison to other school systems which are more loose, clinician and more experimentally based, school systems here focus more of learning and memorizing past accomplishments and theories.      

[Amanda Murat]

In the essay Mill argues that utilitarianism as a moral theory. I agree with his agruement based on the principle that he mentions “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness”. I side with Mill on this, it is a reflection of “the pursuit of Happiness “found in the Declaration of independence, “meant to exemplify the "unalienable rights" with which all human beings are endowed by their creator for their protection of which they institute governments”. Everyone defines Happiness to fit what they may like or desire to please their moral norms.  Whether good or bad for them, Each and every individual have things they may like or enjoy , that they would consider to make them happy. Happiness is an important factor of morality; And Mill argues that people only desire happiness, without really knowing means of happiness.

 

I feel like everyone is their own individual and as one reach a certain age , the actions the take and the way they may feel about certain things becomes a natural part of them unless taught other wise . So happiness has a different meaning to each individual, we all have our own purpose in life, so we will all desire for something different to make ourselves happy.