Theories of Justice

Theories of Justice

Part 1

Liberty for John Stuart Mill is defined as “the nature and limits of the power of which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual” (Pettit 2007 58-84). Mill argues that society can only use authority over behaviour that harms others; anything else is an end of human freedom. He links liberty to the ability to progress and to avoid social inactivity.

Free discourse is a necessary condition for intellectual and social progress. The only time humans or society as a whole can interfere with individual liberty is for self-protection. Mill also notes that the right of liberty does not apply to children, or to what he calls "backward" societies. Liberty holds only when people are capable of learning from discussion; otherwise these same people must be taken care of. Mill is not justifying the claim of liberty as an abstract right; rather, he is emphasizing it with utility and for the permanent goals of mankind. In addition, Mill states that liberty must be linked with the freedom to think as one wishes, the freedom to pursue tastes and interests and the freedom to meet with others, without all these freedoms, one cannot be considered to be truly free.

Mill starts On Liberty by arguing what kind of society can legitimately take control over the individual. He says that some humans have entered a more civilized stage of development in which issues of individual liberty must be addressed. He turns out to say that liberty used to imply protection against the tyranny of political rulers. These same rulers and its subjects were supposed to have a Slave-to-master relationship (Hobhouse 2004 49).

The leader at this time did not govern for the interests of their people, and his power was also seen as dangerous. Some people then tried to limit the ruler's power by implementing political rights or liberties and constitutional checks in which the community had some power over important acts. Mill then indicates that people progressed to a point where they wanted their leaders to be their servants. They also wanted them to reflect their interests and will. Although, limiting the ruler's power seemed efficient, it was not necessary, since the ruler was accountable to the people and there was no fear of the people tyrannizing himself.

Mill then talks about an actual democratic republic which developed in the United States and was accountable to determine that the people do not rule themselves. Rather, powerful people take advantage of this power and exercise it over others. Always the majority will oppress the minority. This is so called the “Tyranny of the majority”. However, Mill argues that the power of public opinion has more effect than any new law being implemented. Thus, there must be protection for the public opinion. People must express their ideas for future change in the system. However, Mill argues that society should have control over only those actions that directly affect it and those actions that harm some of its ...