Mills Fallacy of Private Life - Essay Example

Task James Fitz James Stephens was a judge and philosopher whose theory of liberty, Fraternity and Equality figured more dominantly during the mid to late 19th century. James’ two concepts were borrowed to the modern world. They include Equality and Fraternity. This essay seeks to examine the criticism of Mills’ Fallacies. As a point of departure, Stephen disagrees with Mill on the instruments to invigorate and expand a strong personal character. According to Mills distinguishable features, Coercion has really announced and, but develops a character and its originality. Various examples will be outlined to indicate this position. In a bid to understand himself, Stephen tried to offer a corrective pattern of views, which are powerfully examined in Stuart’s Mill, who becomes the center of discussion in this essay (James, 34). Mills fallacy of private life As a point of departure, according to Mill’s the public normally unite around political ideologies about how to get along together. This belief is guided by the basic constitutional ideologies. In addition, the identity of politics, such as gay act According to Mill, were equal before, based on activities and rights movements should be left alone. The model of similarity applies to this incident, however, the bone of contention between this perspective and the Mill’s belief takes us to the discussion, where Stephen disagrees with the Mill’s ideology that, people should be left to do whatever they want as long as they do it in private (James, 37). This is a serious fallacy, which needs to be sorted. The underlying principle as to why the public, according to Mill should be allowed to do what they want is because of the presence of the harm principle, which dictates that, without legit reasons to limit people leave them alone. This brings us to a question that, Does Mill’s ideology in the liberty of people based on the Harm Principle. Stephen’s challenge on the Mill’s fallacy of private life If yes, then Stephen challenges this fallacy. Mills agrees with the harm section of the ideology on morals, however, Mills’ liberal mind is exhibited, when he disagrees with the section of the legal morals. Where he disagrees that when something is immoral, the immorality element should not be applied to make law on it. On this point, Mill asserts that, communitarian morals are against the public order and should not influence our way of perception, particularly on political matters. Mills argues that, communal thinking and way of doing thing in a group should not be used to make a legal and informed decision against an individual or a group of people (James, 33). For instance, Mill asserts that, if an individual is doing something that is perceived to be wrong with the majority of the people in the society, they should not be allowed to punish that person, if the act in question has not harmed anybody. However, Stephen sees this aspect in a broader manner. The society makes laws in terms of the good and bad sides of an issue. When something does not, please majority of the members of a society, it implies that, it is wrong and no room should be offered to such thinking. Some of the problems that are attributed to Mills thinking include the legal coercion and the social opinion. These two aspects are strong that, they can make the legal opinion null. For instance, the state law and police can be applied to coerce people to do something, but do the norms compel people to do something? The answer is no, this is because any society dwells in values which are accepted and should be followed. This aspect of social thinking forms a foundation most societies and this is why Mills’ perception about societal thinking is discredited. This is because, according to the public law order a group of people, living together cannot think a bad thing and implement it, without any one of them opposing. This leaves us comfortable in following the social values (James, 35). Mill’s fallacy of process development versus Stephen’s criticism The other aspect is that is of controversy between Mills and Stephen is the act and process of character development (Frauke, 228). Mills believes that character development is immensely influenced by originality and not freedom. However, Stephen argues that character is developed and can be taught. In essence, Stephen tries to argue that, character is not original, neither inborn, and instead it is acquired or environmentally attributed. Stephen asserts that character can be developed not coerced. On the side of the social norms, Stephen asserts that, all humanity should be left to take personal judgment on the necessity of such social norms. No one should be compelled. The three instances and more that follows in this essay, indicates two parallel opinions about Liberty, Fraternity and Equality. Stephen’s criticism of mills’ principle of liberty It should be realizable that, the criticisms posed by Stephen based on the mills fallacies are multi dimensional and his ideals and principles advocate for liberty that is orderly, and which is guided by morality and law. This is witnessed in his diversified explanation that that the worthiness of this liberty encompasses allowance of individuals to pursue their own choices, which they deem right for them (Frauke, 227). He further argues that it contributes to the societal well-being. Authentic options in this regard, are fundamental because they provide a social confinement within which individuals, operate and enjoy themselves in diverse social structures. Thus, in Stephen’s cross-examination on this matter, the behavior and worth of regulations involving liberty, they exist within the stipulations that form it. This argument by Stephen thus, disagrees with the Mill’s simple principle of liberty, which states that coercion is justified concerning character development in an individual’s social life. In addition, he further states that, liberty without constraints is much better and needs to be embraced in diverse social and societal settings (James, 34). Mill concludes that the principle of liberty if dynamically followed would be the foundation of subversion of all morality, because morality is initiated through the coercive attitudes of others. Stephen, who subscribes to a divergent opinion as aforementioned contests this. Stephen’s criticism on Mill’s egalitarianism While Stephen stands for parity under the law, the Mill stands for a pessimistic egalitarianism (Frauke, 226). Stephen considers the rule of law and equality of persons before the law as the paramount feature of a civilized world. He therefore regards despots and perpetrators of slavery as primitive and unacceptable in societal organizations. In his perspective despotism and other social ills do not have a space throughout human transformations (James, 34). Thus, criticizes the approach given by Mill that entirely advocates for pessimistic egalitarianism. Stephen’s overall Conception on Equality, liberty and Society Stephen conceptualizes the ideals of understanding social norms that include picturesque of conflicts in human beings. To him moral fabric forms an integral part of self-discipline that determines the moral conduct of an individual’s social life. He offers the best comprehension of human beings, social engagement that captures the human situation. Without the discipline imposed by ethics, persons will tend to pursue a life of redundancy, a life that is uninspiring, without elevated civilization, a life deficient of the inspiration to accomplish greatness of personality (Frauke, 226). Stephen thus sees that the human condition engrosses superior uncertainty than a world of men and women having either immensity or malice of character, unfortunately, the human fortitude typically does not aim higher; nevertheless, human beings do have social wishes, Stephen thus asserts which in conjunction with the restraints of morality In conclusion, it is fair to say that Stephen comprehends his analysis of freedom, equality, and fraternity to be divergent to Mill’s in almost every important particular. On his view, he stands for liberty and Mill stands for certification; he represents equality under law and Mill stands for a miserable egalitarianism; he stands for an abstemious thoughtful of the conflicts in human affairs and Mill for a great illusion. Work Cited Höntzsch, Frauke. Individuelle Freiheit Zum Wohle Aller. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien, 2010. Internet resource. Stephen, James F. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity and Three Brief Essays. Chicago [u.a.: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1991. Print. Read More