This paper is going to explain and describe what both philosophers believe about Mill and Thoreau. The paper will also describe the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments given by the philosophers in support of their positions. Lastly, the paper will explain the differences and similarities of the views of the philosophers.
John Stuart Mill on Justice, Individual Rights, and Freedom
Mill defends the rights of minorities and individuals against democratic majorities.
Mill goes ahead to consider a simple principle that an individual’s liberty should not be violated except when other individuals are harmed or threatened.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to Mill, one’s individual liberty should not be violated unless when it is harmful to others.
Mill states that self-protection is the principle that for should be enforced when one interferes with the liberty of other people.
However, Mill further points out that power can be rightfully exercised by relevant authorities only when the common interest is to prevent harm to others.
The doctrine is, however, limited to mature people with the restriction of children or young individuals since they still need to be taken care of.
If the end result is an improvement, the government may legitimately use despotism as a mode of dealing with barbarianism.
Mill also points out that the inaction of an individual towards the necessary interest of the society can also be equally treated as an evil act.
Additionally, freedom could be negative in regard to interference or positive in regard to one’s potential and the place one holds in society.
Furthermore, there are negative rights which entail the right to be left alone and positive rights which entail the rights to minimum wage regardless of the kind of jobs.
Henry David Thoreau on Justice, Individual Rights, and Freedom
Thoreau points out that power should be in the hands of the majority who can exercise it basing on conscience rather than in the hands of a minority who may abuse it.
According to Thoreau, one is expected to do what is right according to what he believes irrespective of the government’s laws.
Wrongful exercise of power by authorities is also condemned by Thoreau as he prefers one to quit their jobs rather than oppress others in the name of exercising the law.
Moreover, Thoreau does not approve the use of prisons as justice since he sees it as slavery.
Thoreau believes in self-reliance and independence rather than an unjust government.
He believes that a man is required to live according to his nature, failure to which he may not be living in the right manner.
Strengths of Mill’s arguments
Mill clearly argues that the exercise of power should be conducted when one does harm to others as by allowing relevant authorities to take action over such individuals.
Mill boldly defines true freedom as the power pursue one’s own good in their own way as long as it does not interfere with the common interest of others.
Weaknesses of Mill’s arguments
Mill limits the exercise of law against individuals but does not specify what should be done to under age offenders.
Mill does not clearly specify of how one should be treated when they fail take an action to help prevent evil should be treated. He does this by sharing contradicting arguments in regards to the matter.
Another key weakness in Mill’s arguments is that he supports the implementation of harsh punishments for minor crimes both in USA and other countries despite the fact that it violates human rights.
Strengths of Thoreau’s arguments
Thoreau clearly argues on the thought of individual conscience and lack of interference since it is the basis of America’s constitution.
Thoreau also boldly argues that power should be in the hand of the majority who an exercise it basing on conscience and justice rather than in the hands of a minority who can easily abuse it.
Weaknesses of Thoreau’s arguments
Some of Thoreau’s arguments do not have moral value as they tend to incite individuals to act against the government, like resistance from civil government.
Thoreau’s arguments negatively affect the common setting of the society based on what the society dictates to be right as they are mostly inclined towards free living and acting on the basis of one’s conscience, which could be wrong at times.
Lastly, Thoreau’s arguments could be more disastrous when implemented wrongly as it supports resistance of government.
Similarities of Mill’s and Thoreau’s arguments
Both believed in the obligation to do what is just and correct in the individual context.
Both support the proper use of authority as Mill supports civil rights while Thoreau criticizes the corrupt and unjust practice of power by a minority over a majority of people.
Differences in the arguments between Mill and Thoreau
Thoreau’s arguments are inclined towards self-reliance and independence while Mill’s arguments are inclined towards the rightful manner of exercising power over individuals.
Thoreau supports simple freedom and describes it as simple living on the basis of one’s own conscience while Mill sees simple freedom as disastrous and more likely to cause chaos and anarchy.
Thoreau’s arguments do not approve the presence of a government at all while Mill’s arguments support the presence of a limited government.
