John Locke and John Stuart Mill were two of the most influential philosophers of their time. Though they shared many similarities, they also had some key differences. Here, we’ll compare and contrast these two great thinkers.
Locke was an English philosopher who is considered one of the founders of modern empiricism. He believed that all knowledge comes from experience, and that our minds are like blank slates at birth. In his famous work, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, he argues that we acquire ideas through sensation and reflection.
Mill, on the other hand, was a British philosopher who was heavily influenced by utilitarianism. This philosophical tradition holds that the purpose of life is to promote happiness and minimize suffering. In his treatise Utilitarianism, Mill argues that we should always act in a way that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Though both Locke and Mill were empiricists, they had different views on how we acquire knowledge. For Locke, all knowledge comes from experience. This means that our minds are like blank slates at birth, and we gradually acquire ideas as we interact with the world around us. Mill, on the other hand, believed that there is such a thing as innate knowledge. This means that some ideas are inborn and that we don’t necessarily need to experience something in order to know it.
Both Locke and Mill were concerned with ethics, but they approached the subject from different angles.
John Locke, on the other hand, thinks that man should have greater political freedom than John Stuart Mill does. The Second Treatise of Government and On Liberty are important and powerful literary works by both John Stuart Mill and John Locke that while laying out the theoretical framework for each thinker’s imagined utopia present two distinct views on man’s nature and liberty.
In this paper, I shall argue that John Locke’s belief in the state of nature as a state of freedom and natural equality is more convincing that John Stuart Mill’s belief in liberty as the absence of restraint.
John Locke believes that man has natural rights which he retains even when he enters into civil society. These rights are life, liberty and property. John Locke believes that man ought to have more freedom in political society than John Stuart Mill does. He argues that since man has these natural rights which he retains even when he enters civil society, it is unjust for the government to take them away.
In addition, John Locke believes that the government should be representative of the people and should serve their interests. He also believes in the separation of powers, which is necessary to prevent the abuse of power by the government.
John Stuart Mill, on the other hand, believes that liberty is the absence of restraint. He argues that man should be free to do as he wishes as long as he does not harm others. He also believes that the government should not interfere with man’s liberty unless it is necessary to do so in order to protect others from harm.
I believe that John Locke’s belief in the state of nature as a state of freedom and natural equality is more convincing than John Stuart Mill’s belief in liberty as the absence of restraint. I think this because John Locke’s beliefs are based on natural rights which everyone has, while John Stuart Mill’s beliefs are based on the idea that man can be trusted to make the right decisions. I also think that the separation of powers is necessary to prevent the abuse of power by the government, and John Locke is more in favor of this than John Stuart Mill.
Because they have different views on man’s basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies, John Locke and John Stuart Mill have opposing ideas about how much freedom individuals should be allowed in political society. To understand how each philosopher perceives man and the liberty he is entitled to in a political system, it is critical to define freedom and liberty from their perspective.
John Locke defines freedom as the ability to do what we want, provided that we don’t infringe on the rights of others. John Stuart Mill expands on this by stating that freedom is the opportunity to do what we ought to do. He believes that not all desires are good and that some should be restrained in order for us to have the best chance at achieving our own conception of happiness, which is the ultimate end of a political society according to Mill.
Locke believes that man is born with a blank slate or tabula rasa and that he is morally neutral until he experiences the world and interacts with other people. The evil in man, in Locke’s view, comes from his environment and from his interactions with other people. He believes that society is naturally divided into three classes: the governors, the governed and those who are neither of these. The job of the governors is to protect the rights of the governed and to punish those who infringe on the rights of others.
Mill, on the other hand, believes that man is born with certain tendencies, some of which are good and some of which are bad. He doesn’t think that man is a blank slate and that he can be taught to be anything that he wants. Rather, Mill believes that each person has a unique set of capabilities and talents that should be cultivated in order for him to have the best chance at achieving his own conception of happiness.
One major difference between Locke and Mill is that Locke believes in the existence of natural rights while Mill does not. Natural rights are those that we have simply by virtue of being human beings. They are not given to us by any government or institution and they cannot be taken away from us by anyone. Examples of natural rights include the right to life, liberty and property.
Locke believes that these rights are inherent in every human being and that the purpose of government is to protect these rights. Mill, on the other hand, does not believe in natural rights. He believes that all rights are created by society and that they can be taken away by society if they are not used responsibly.
Another difference between Locke and Mill is their view of how much freedom man ought to have in political society. Locke believes that man should have a great deal of freedom, provided that he does not infringe on the rights of others. Mill expands on this by saying that each person has the right to do what he believes will lead to his own happiness, provided that his actions do not harm others. Mill believes that the only way to achieve the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people is if each person is free to pursue his own happiness in his own way.