John Stuart Mill
(20 May 1806 - 7 May 1873), an English philosopher, political economist, Member of Parliament. He is also seen as one of the important figures in liberalism. His philosophy shaped liberalism as we see it today. His main influence was Jeremy Bentham. He studied Bentham's philosophy from a very young age and came up with his own version of utilitarianism which became his most popular \ controversial philosophy.
Mills utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is generally the sum of the joys of pain. In utilitarianism, joy and pain are what govern people, they are the motivation of life, and most importantly the basis of morality. Good deeds are those that result in joy or prevent pain; Bad actions are those that cause pain or prevent pleasure. If we put actions on the scale of value and morality, we must look at 1) If it causes pleasure or pain. 2) quantity, not only personal, but the benefit of the group as a whole. So the more joy and people benefit, the better, more valuable and moral the action is. And the more pain and more people it hurts, how bad and immoral it is.
It is fundamental in utilitarianism that what matters is the result or effect of the actions, not the intention.
Many thinkers believe that this way of thinking has major consequences, because it denies all motivations and values for actions other than pleasures. Which makes humans no better than animals. If we talk about quantities, an individual may find a physical pleasure such as laying down more comfortable than intellectual performance. Does it really make it better? If we follow the measurement mentioned above, which is assumed by, then yes, but Mill asks to be different. He added an extra measuring tool, which is the quality of joy. Mill divided pleasures into highs and lows. The higher joys are those that show the increased capacity for human intellect and creativity. The lower pleasures that pleasures caused by the exercise of our lower capacities. The good thing about distinguishing between pleasures is that it turns off the critique of utilitarianism that is animal-like. In this way, Mill's statements about utility as the sole motive and quality of pleasures are inconsistent. On what basis did Mill assume that higher pleasures are better than lower pleasures? If it is not the amount or duration of pleasure, Mill introduces a different standard than pleasure. Maybe intellect as a motive in itself.
Personal Freedom
Mill's belief is that humans are inherently free. People have the right to think, speak and act as they wish, as long as it does not harm anyone, without pressure or coercion from others. These actions are described by Mill as self-respecting.
Mill believes that the government must be a neutral institution that does not have a religion or a moral system. Because it is simply not the task of the government to teach people morals or religious beliefs, personal freedom should therefore not be limited by religion or moral law. It is entirely up to the people how they determine values, principles and religion. He denies the idea of a government interfering in itself as fathers do with their children. This type of system of government is called patriarchalism. The only thing that makes it okay to interfere is to protect people from harm, which is referred to as “Harm principal. Mill is very precise when he says injury. He actually means physical harm that does not include being criticized, feeling disrespectful or offended.
This means that people are free to harm themselves by taking drugs or driving under the influence in an isolated place, or that people can drink their soul away and no one has the right to disturb because according to Mill it is my concern and no one else's. / P>
Mill's idea of freedom of thought and expression
Mill emphasizes that people must be given the freedom to think and express their thoughts freely, whether those thoughts are true or not. He views silence as unfair in all circumstances. Even though the majority of people agreed with the ruler to curb a certain thought, it still does not give them the right to ask a person who wants to express another idea. His argument is that if the ruler has the power to silence a person, then they will silence all people if they can and abuse such power results in great harm, so the solution Mill introduces is to limit the ruler's power in a way they can not silence anyone. to begin with, no matter how much the idea that is silent is wrong and the idea that is enforced by the ruler is correct. Mill defends this idea by presenting two scenarios. The first is, if the idea of silence is true - in this case it is of course unfair to suppress the idea because it deprives people of developing and learning. The second scenario is, if the idea that is silenced is wrong, then it is still unfair because it deprives people of correcting misconceptions, broadening their horizons and discovering new perspectives.
Furthermore, when rulers silence people, they put themselves in a position where they are standard right and wrong. In fact, rulers do not have absolute knowledge or absolute security. Even in the lightest of cases, the ruler may not be perfect, but by silencing people and simply hearing support, they eliminate the chance of hearing another, valuable idea.
Submission of women
The term submission of women refers to "the systematic treatment of women by social, political and economic institutions. Because society enforces laws that limit the educational, professional, economic and legal status and choices of women as a group," Mill addresses the struggle of women and the the fact that they are not treated equally or fairly by society, law, or literature.He criticized the Romantic movement for romance in order to enforce women's degrading views.
Mill saw that the oppression of women was wrong in itself, but he also put forward several reasons to emphasize the importance of stopping the oppression of women. Women who have the same rights as men allow them to take part in the development and progress of society. To hold back half of society's potential unnecessarily is to hold back humanity intellectually. This is under the assumption that women and men have equal abilities, which we have no reason to believe otherwise, but even if women were inferior to men with intellectual and physical abilities, you still unnecessarily deprive society from taking advantage of progress at least some of the women could have achieved. As allowing women to be part of progress will help society even if there are only a few women, but banning women will not benefit anyone in any way. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that all women are unfit to aid development, and that abolishing laws restricting women will still not harm anyone, because they simply will not take that role. This happens naturally as people do not have to ban people by law from taking on roles they are unsuitable for. For example, thin men are not prohibited by law from being construction workers. In a free environment, a strong man will take that role, and the thin man will be part of another industry that does not require physical strength, resulting in a win-win-win-win situation for the thin man, the strong man, and both industries these two men ended up in because of their different ability. If we finally agree that it is not harmful to give women equal rights, then it is wrong to ban it, according to Mill.
One of the counter-arguments is the claim that treating women differently and limiting them is "natural". Mill reacts and ridicules that argument in two parts. First, "Was there ever any dominance that did not seem natural to those who had it?". He sheds light on the fact that oppressors are not aware of the injustices they are committing. To claim women's oppression as "natural" is an unfounded assumption. The fact that oppression of women is widely practiced around the world and throughout history does not "normalize" it naturally and does not justify it.
Second, most people do not even use "nature" to be a standard for what is right and wrong. People like to claim to be social and intellectual, they also have a level of awareness of equality to abolish slavery and demands for equality. The same society somehow draws the line at women's rights. You can not help but realize the double standards. Using reason and logic to address issues they are concerned about, while applying primitive principles to women's equality demands.
Hegel's critique of Mill's notions of freedom
For Mill, the concept of freedom is simply the lack of obstacles. If no power can force a person to do or do nothing, then she is free. Although he sees the need to limit freedom by not harming others. For Hegel, the concept of freedom is a little more complicated.
Hegel has two conditions for freedom:
First condition, subjectivity. For the action to be self-determining. Meaning from within the person.
Second condition, objectivity. For these actions to be rational according to something that is not yourself.
Hegel believes that subjectivity is not enough. It has to be an objective part, a reference people can come back to. For for Hegel, an individual cannot be his own reference. People may have irrational thoughts, ambitions or joys. Without objectivity, for a person to perform irrational actions, Hegel does not call it negative freedom as some philosophers do. He does not see it as freedom to begin with. According to Hegel, in order for a person to be truly free, they must consider their thoughts and actions for a certain reference, and if it turned out to be irrational, it is not free to try it even if they want it or think about it. as pleasurable.
Nietzsche's critique of liberalism
Nietzsche criticizes many ideas related to liberalism. He criticizes the whole idea of demanding democracy and equality, which is a huge part of liberalism, as slave morality. Nietzsche's view of reality is that human ultimate motivation is not happiness or joy as Mill claims, but power and dominance. For this reason, people seek to dominate themselves and others. Consequently, the moral trait formed. People who succeeded in gaining power (master) were superior. Therefore, they were seen as good and moral traits were associated with qualities they had. This can be seen in wealth, physical strength, good health, etc. On the other hand, people who were dominated and inferior to the masters got their qualities related to immorality, such as poverty, disease, physical weakness. However, "slaves" later grew angry with the "gentlemen", which led them to come up with what he calls "slave morality" which praises weakness under the name of humility, forgiveness, etc. In addition to condemning the "gentlemen" for being evil, arrogant, etc. Then demanding equality and democracy is an extent of this slave morality driven by anger. Nietzsche actively reduced democratic demands by describing them as weak and slave morals.
Furthermore, he criticizes these demands that gender equality will result in the unique and superior being laid down and flourishing. And for these reasons he sees the hierarchical, aristocratic model as better than liberalism.
Marx's critique of liberalism
One of the Marxist criticisms of liberalism is that it does not achieve equality or freedom as it claims. It only adds flowers to the chains of the modern state. The modern state is capitalist, exploiting in favor of the bourgeoisie. Furthermore, it changes human nature from social and caring for each other to selfish and self-centered. Meanwhile, liberalism does not solve that problem or solve it, but wrongly claims that freedom and quality can be achieved under capitalism. There is no possible scenario where equality and freedom can be achieved without abolishing capitalism completely. As long as the 'proletariat' of the people is exploited, therefore, there can be no freedom or equality. Freedom and equality can only be achieved through a social revolution involving the transcendence of private property.
Burke critique of liberalism
Burke, who is a conservative, criticizes liberalism coming from a patriot-religious place. The only red line Mill draws regarding freedom is to harm others. Burke rejects that idea, he believes there is a need for more restrictions for the sake of the collective, the family, society and the nation. And these restrictions should be dictated by the state and religion. For example, it is not acceptable to congratulate a person who broke into prison for freedom. Freedom, in this case, is not a good deed because it violates the law. Besides, when people think of the best interests of the collective, they are stronger, and their actions are wiser. But the freedom and individuality Mill calls for will result in division, weakness and chaos.
the conclusion
In short, the philosophical approach these thinkers take to human motives and goals, determines their whole minds in political matters such as the role of the state, how much freedom people should have, equality and even morality.