Mill's Position on Paternalism
John Stuart Mill, by way of his work, On Liberty, questions the extent to which government should be able to interfere with the liberties of its citizens. The crucial concern for Mill is where the state should draw the line, at the individual level, with regard to its desires to determine what is best for the citizen and thus society as a whole. As a result of his recognition of the shortcomings of representative democracy, the establishment of his Harm Principle, adherence to utilitarianism, and investigations of liberties of thought and action, Mill confidently, and legitimately, asserts that state paternalism is never justified. Mill has no qualms of questioning the very system that he devotes much time in other essays defending - representational government. His concern is that merely arriving at the system is not enough and, it follows, consideration must be given to the shortcomings of the very system. One of the primary inadequacies of such a system, of course, is its disregard of the eclectic composition of the citizenry which gives rise to such circumstances of detriment like the infamous 'tyranny of the majority'. Mill logically points out that in all situations wherein a majority is established the minority will be s
It is important that it be reminded, as was commented earlier, that unlimited individuality creates a condition by which individuality will inevitable be questioned. Mill believes asserts the following in his fourth chapter: "What I contend for is, that the inconveniences which are strictly inseparable from the unfavorable judgment of others, are the only ones to which a person should ever be subjected." And, he invites us to consider that opinion does have power. It should not be surprising that Mill welcomes it, for opinion is a component of expression, of course! The individual should not be subject to the opinions of government for governmental opinions precede laws that prevent action, but that the individual will encounter opinion from the citizenry is inevitable and uncontested by Mill. As well, even Mill doesn't leave the door entirely closed to paternalism. Common sense implies that instances do exist where it is, for a small period of time, required. One of Mill's obvious examples is the upbringing of children and those of limited mental capacity. More interesting ones concern dangerous actions by others and slavery. In the first case, Mill concludes that if an individual is to take action which he, had he all the necessary information, would not take his liberty can be infringed upon if there is not enough time for him to be informed. An example to illustrate this point is a man about to embark across an unsafe bridge. Should one with knowledge allow him to cross and plunge to his death or stop him immediately? Of course the person should be stopped. Also, Mill believes that paternalism could rightfully apply in the prevention of slavery. Since, he rationalizes that no one has the right to give up his freedom the state should not honor contractual slavery. So, Mill, being the rational man that he is, can offer obvious circumstances wherein paternalism can be tolerated. These are, however, very limited circumstances. ubject, by and large, to unjust laws. Mill therefore constructs a mechanism by which, he thinks, all citizens, whether within the comforts of the majority or anxieties of the minority, will benefit.
Some common words found in the essay are:
Liberty Utilitarianism, Harm Principle, According Mill, Mill Mill, Paternalism Mill, Mill Liberty, Representative Government, 'harm principle', mill believes, harm principle, utilitarian calculation, paternalism mill, freedom expression, citizen citizens, justified silencing, slavery mill, truth questioned,
Approximate Word count = 1443
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
