The Comparison of John Stuart Mills On Liberty and Joseph Razs The Morality of Freedom - Essay Example

Mill vs. Raz In John Stuart Mill's publication On liberty, Mill describes his principles on the individuals well being. He stresses that the only reason power should be exerted over any member of a civilized community, against their will, is if it is to prevent harm to others. (1991, p.30) His conviction is in that the individual should have absolute control in matters that affect only him or her. Mill is substantially influenced by his belief in human imperfection, his certainty in the value of choice as a contributor to well-being of the individual. Guided by 'one very simple principle' he outlines an argument for a system, which he believed, provided the best possible environment for individual and social progress (Mill, 1991, p.30). Mill advocates for human's shortcoming and their incompleteness of knowledge, which means that the "truth" is not always the truth. Based on Mill's assertions, any one group who attempts to coerce another group or individual is breaching individual liberty, which leads to the stagnation of the intellectual community. The key to progress lies in the condition of seeking the best span of human experience and development. The individual in the Millian liberal society is engaged in 'experiments in living'; attempts to find "new, deeper or merely different sources of happiness in life", uncoerced by the state or fellow individuals. (Ryan, 1991, p.166) The most important aspect of well-being is to note that the individual has complete authority in matters regarding themselves, society does not have the right to restrict the individual, as long as the actions of the individual is not causing harm to themselves or others. Liberty is, therefore, an integral component of well-being; liberty provides the best possible conditions to achieve the "permanent interests of man as a progressive being." (Mill, 1991, p.31) In Joseph's Raz's The Morality of Freedom, his theory does not rest on a human being's fallacies but instead he argues that the individual's well being rests on how he or she is integrally interconnected to society's goals and its relationships. Raz argues that there are not an infinite range of good lives, that every life is valuable, but the lifestyles that an individual may choose do not necessarily lead to human well-being. Raz creates an idea of the individual's well-being results from not just one being but that individual's situation within a culture, history, and society. He makes the simple argument that if a government can make a universal decision to prevent murder, then the state can act in defense of moral reason. Raz states that 'governments should promote the moral quality of the life of those whose lives and actions they can affect.' (1988, p.415) He advocates that the individuals will adapt to society's preferences and then will be able to have a good life, striving for well-being. Raz declares that the importance of a liberal society does not rely on the individual choice, as it does for Mill, but instead the individual should be able to choose between various alternatives that have been determined and supported by the society where the individual resides. A person's well-being should not be dependant on how the individual lives their life and how they determine their actions to be of vale but rather their well-being rests on how living a life is valuable independent of how it helps the individual. As he explains, an "autonomous life is valuable only if it is spent in the pursuit of acceptable and valuable projects and relationships." (1988, p.417) To best illustrate Mill and Raz's ideals for an individual's well-being take for example an person's addiction to alcohol. Through Mill's theory, the demand and priority for an individual's liberty in this self-regarding conduct and the belief in human experimentation does not accrue any benefits for the individual. It is highly unlikely that the majority of individuals will benefit from a life influenced by drugs. Raz on the other hand argues that the life of a drug addict is clearly inferior in terms of value, both to the individual and to society, and that restricting the substance does not restrict the individual's liberty in any meaningful way. Given the experience of many Western societies with the harms that do accrue from certain types of drug use, the position of Raz seems more reasonable than Mill's. Unpatriotic to Disobey the Law Rules, laws have been established and exist in each society for the common good. Government officials, people in positions of authority, etc would argue that adhering to rules is a sign of obedience but blindly obeying authority could result is disobedience to an individual's personal morality. If rules do conflict with someone's moral than it is the responsibility of that person to disobey. It is important to remember that disobedience does not center around ignorance but instead historically disobedience is the manner that people have used to show enlightenment when there is wrong. By the dictionary's definition, disobedience is a violation or disregard of a rule or prohibition. However, if people do not challenge a system then people and societies do not have the opportunity to expand, grow, develop or evolve. By disagreeing a person is demanding that their personal convictions are not compromised. Prime examples of two very different points of view are: the government drafting young men into the army, and the men being reluctant to go. Indeed, a pacifist is not going to be as patriotic as a navel-officer, however; the pacifist should not have to entertain the idea of killing a man, simply because he is expected to obey. This opinion is not just an act of rebellion to a higher authority; it is a commitment to one's personal morals, simply because no higher authority exists beyond oneself. It is important to remember that not everyone holds the same opinion therefore not everyone should be governed by the same rules. Thus differing opinions even if against the law initially can bring a community to an enlightened sense of understanding. To clarify this idea, it is a known theory that history repeats itself, and still society today has neglected to acknowledge that opposition to present rules is an essential partner in the authentication of moral decisions. An example of how these 'rules' have been confused would be the Holocaust. Hitler wanted the Jews exterminated, and although many of the people (non-Jewish) felt this was inhumane and unjust, they remained silent and inert. The liberation of the Jews did not occur until Russia discovered the confusion between the broad rules and the moral rules. Once the Russians publicized how the 'rules' fell into sequence, (through the liberation of the Jews), society aspired not to regress into the mindset of 'obedience before morals', and essentially, to not allow history to repeat itself. Since society is committed to progress, they have altered the way in which they address sensitive issues. By obeying society's powerful authority, people sign over their freedom, and accept their loss of agency with a smile. However it seems that citizens are waiving their freedom because they are unaware of its suppression. An example of this would be Stanley Milgram's experiment in trying to determine why the Holocaust occurred. The procedure entailed observing the people, ('the teachers') and the extent to which they would obey authority by inflicting severe electrical shock upon other humans when instructed to do so. The results of Milgram's research showed that although the test subjects were able to leave the experiment at any time, few challenged the authority. The choices to either disobey or obey occur simultaneously, because when a person obeys a higher authority, (such as the government), he/she often disobeys his/her morality. In short, obedience and therefore disobedience will never singularly exist. If a person obeys a higher authority, he/she often disobeys the unacknowledged higher authority known as ones conscience. Henry David Thoreau supported this claim: There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as the higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. (Thoreau 256) Thoreau highlights the fact that if society will never see morals as more important than the written law and civilization as a whole, therefore, will never progress. With the endless variation of mainstream religions and fluctuating trends, morals remain a rare constant. For this reason it not allows unpatriotic to disobey the law; citizens should value and obey their personal morals over the ideals of authority figures, so that those in power will be more conscientious of their societal surroundings. References Milgram, Stanley. The Perils of Obedience . Reading Across the Curriculum. Mill, J.S. (1991) "On Liberty" J.S. Mill - On Liberty in Focus. (eds.) Gray J. & G.W. Smith. London: Routledge. Raz, J. (1988) The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Clarendon. Ryan, A. "John Stuart Mill's Art of Living", J.S. Mill - On Liberty in Focus. (eds.) Gray J. & G.W. Smith. London: Routledge. Read More