Free Individuals and Rights - Literature review Example

Free Individuals and Rights Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill are the well-known sociologists and philosophers of the 19th century. Their works even nowadays are the basis for the modern study of the sociology. In their works a lot of attention is given to the phenomenon of the “free individuals” and if we compare the authors’ points of view we can find there a lot of similarities and also enough distinct thoughts. Freedom of the individual, in the interpretation of Mill, means absolute independence of the human in everything that directly concerns only himself and does not cause harm to society. Mill singles out three facets of individual freedom: freedom of thought, feeling, opinion and expression; freedom of choice and the pursuit of life goals and self-ordering of personal destiny; freedom of association with other individuals (Mill 1963). Mill pays special attention to freedom of thought and speech. The society in which there is opportunity to discuss the ideas without obstacles, is the only suitable society for a free individual. In the interpretation of individual freedom Mill deflected from the utilitarianism of his spiritual mentors. He did not mind the social utility of freedom, but the main quality of individuals freedom for him was the self-worth of that freedom. Freedom is the proper condition for the existence of a moral, responsible person. To live ones own life, develop one’s own innate abilities - according to the Mills understanding - is not the way to happiness, and happiness itself. Freedom in his reading is not only the individual, but also a social benefit, and abuse of the freedom of one person means violence over the whole society. And conversely, the inheritance of a free individual is the devotion to the happiness of others, selfless service to the society. Mill in any case does not identify individual freedom to arbitrarily things, permissiveness and other antisocial things. Both the state and public opinion is entitled to exercise a legal and moral violence against individuals, injuring other people or society in general. Mill believes that the state which guarantees all kinds of individual freedom, is able to establish the proper order within. In a narrow sense it (the order) means obedience. Obedience generally is, in the opinion of Mill, the first sign of any civilization. Free individual, for Mill, is also the law-abiding person. Freedom of the individual is primary in relation to the political structures. There is some ambiguity in this theory, because it puts the state in dependence on the will and ability of people to create and build a normal human coexistence. Recognition of this dependence forced Mill to revise the early-liberal point of view on the state. He refuses to see it as an institution, bad by its very nature, from which only the good always virtuous society suffers. Mill became a classic defender of individual freedom. For him, it represented a great value itself. From the standpoint of freedom he didnt think that democracy is the most efficient form of government. Defending liberal democracy Mill, at the same time, did not idealize it. He realized the true danger of "mass democracy", fraught with leveling of the individual, "averaging" of the human and suppression of individuality. The problem of individuals freedom and the liability associated with it in developed socialism arises anew in the works of Karl Marx. Freedom, which is get and realized in the process of learning and the specific activities of people, finds its expression in the human’s ruling over the forces of nature and society. In terms of social relations improvement, scientific and technological revolution implies a special responsibility of a human to nature and to the society. According to K. Marx, communism will lead to the human emancipation from the domination of things, generated, ultimately, by antagonistic division of labor. Destruction of the division of social labor will contribute to establishing of harmony between the nature of the human and his existence, what is objectively and logically is the aim of the social development. Individuals freedom is the right of citizens to participate in the economic, cultural and political life of the country freely, the right for security of person, home, correspondence and etc." (Marx) From the definitions it is clear that there are four main components of freedom: political, economic, national-governmental and individuals rights. Marxism sees the right of the individual in absolute terms, to such an extent as only possible in the community. Also speaking today about the Marxist understanding of individual rights, it is important to note that it is distinctly different from asceticism and rough equalization, preached by communist utopians. There are many similarities between the theories of Marx and Mill, for example, both of them were not satisfied with the policy of laissez-faire and both tried to lay a better foundation for the practical realization of the fundamental ideas of individual freedom. However, their views on the method of sociology are also one of very important differences. Mill believed that the study of society, ultimately, must be reducible to psychology, and the laws of historical development should be explained in terms of human nature, "the laws of the mind" and, in particular, the laws of its progressive development. Marx gave him a dare. "The legal relationship - he argued - just the same as the form of the state, cannot be understood from the point of the so-called general development of the human spirit ...» (Marx 1987) Together with Hegel, Marx believed that individual’s freedom is the aim of the historic development. Marx points out: "a person can be free only to the extent up to which he was freed from the production process." (Marx 1987) But today we know that, according to K. Marx, in all hitherto existing societies, the individual, actually, was not free. Indeed, - Marx asks - how can we get rid of the production process? - Only by forcing others to do the dirty work for us. Thus we have to use them as a means due to which we can achieve our goals, we have to demote them. We can get a greater degree of freedom only through the enslavement of others, due to the division of people into classes. The ruling class gets freedom at the expense of the subordinate classes, slaves. However, the consequence of this is the fact that members of the ruling class have to pay for their freedom with a new type of addiction. They have to oppress subordinates and deal with them if they want to maintain their freedom and their own status. Forcing humanity to "production for productions sake", the capitalist forces him "to the development of the social productive forces and the establishment of the material conditions of production, which alone can be the real basis of a higher social form, the basic principle of which is the full and free development of every individual." The problem of individuals freedom and the liability associated with it in conditions of developed socialism arises anew. To be a free individual doesnt mean to be able to indulge all the whims and fancies, as liberalism tries to persuade us. To be an individual for a communist society means that, for example, the workers are to be ready to give all their skills and strength to the society. Not because they have to or are forced, but because they cannot do otherwise by inner conviction. To sum up we can say that the concept of "individual freedom" in the interpretation of Mill and Marx is different. So the first one believes that individuals freedom is the freedom of each individual in everything including managing their lives. Marx, in turn, believes that this concept can be considered only within the state - a person is free only if they voluntarily work for the good of society, and in cooperation with it. Mill does not deny this version, and also indicates that selfless service to the community - one of the faces of a free individual. But Marx didnt consider that the generalization of individuals in the conditions of the capitalist labor more negates the Individual rights and freedom then contributes to its development. Mill believes that the government must protect the rights of the free individual. And Marx believes that the free individual itself must resist capitalist exploitation. I consider that the position of S. Mill is much more acceptable in the modern society because both the individual and society bear mutual responsibility, which creates a more stable relationship between them. This position allows individual to develop and operate for the benefit of the society without worrying about the order in that society, since this problem is covered by the state. Works cited Karl Marx, Collected Works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels: Volume 35, Volume 36 and Volume 37. International Publishers: New York, 1987 The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, ed. J.M. Robson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963-1991), Read More