John Locke and John Stuart Mill are two of the most influential political philosophers of all time. Though they had different opinions on a variety of topics, they both had a huge impact on the development of liberal democracies. In this article, we will compare and contrast their thoughts on freedom, democracy, and the role of government.
Locke was born in 1632 and Mill in 1806, so they had very different experiences and worldviews. Locke was a product of the Enlightenment era, which was a time of great intellectual growth and progress. Mill, on the other hand, lived during the Industrial Revolution, which brought about many changes in society and technology.
Locke believed that people are by nature free and equal. He thought that people should be able to govern themselves, and that the role of government was to protect people’s rights and liberty. Mill agreed with Locke on the importance of freedom, but he believed that it needed to be balanced with other important social values like equality and justice. He thought that people should be able to participate in government and have a say in how they are governed.
Both Locke and Mill were important contributors to the development of liberal democracies. Their ideas continue to be influential to this day, and they are considered two of the most important political philosophers of all time.
John Locke believes that man should have greater political freedom than John Stuart Mill does. The Second Treatise of Government and On Liberty are two influential and powerful literary works by John Locke and John Stuart Mill, respectively, which outline the theoretical framework of each thinker’s ideal state while presenting two distinct viewpoints on the nature of man and his liberty.
John Locke believes that individuals have a natural right to life, liberty and estate. He furthermore believes that this natural right is best preserved when the government’s power is limited. John Stuart Mill on the other hand, while concurring with Locke that each individual possesses certain natural rights, also believes that society ought to interfere in order to protect these rights. For Mill, the exercise of one’s liberty must be limited in order to preserve the liberties of others.
The essay will discuss how Locke’s belief in the state of nature as a state of perfect freedom allows for a more laissez faire government where individuals are only restricted by the law of nature. It will also explore how Mill’s belief in society as a protector of individual liberties necessitates a more paternalistic government which is allowed to interfere in the lives of its citizens.
John Locke and John Stuart Mill have opposing views on how much liberty a person should be allowed in political society, owing to their different perceptions of man’s basic potential for inherently good or evil acts, as well as the purpose of political societies. To understand how each philosopher sees man and the freedom he deserves in political society, it is necessary to define freedom or liberty from each philosopher’s viewpoint.
For Locke, freedom is the absence of external restraint meaning that individuals are only free when they are not being coerced or restrained by another. In contrast, for Mill, freedom means the absence of internal restraint meaning that an individual is only free when he is not hindered in his actions by his own thoughts or desires. From this distinction it can be seen that Locke is more concerned with preventing others from violating our rights while Mill is more concerned with self-restraint.
Locke believes that without external restraint men would be in a state of war where each person would be trying to use their own power to dominate everyone else. The way to prevent this from happening and to ensure peace and stability in society is to have a government with enough power to restrain the people. In contrast, Mill does not think that men are by nature inclined to be in a state of war with each other and that it is only through institutions like the government that this can be enforced. For Mill, the purpose of a government is to protect our rights, not to restrain us.
Based on their different views of man’s basic potential and the ends or purposes of political societies, it follows that Locke would advocate for more freedom than Mill would. Locke believes that we should have less freedom internally so that we are not constantly at war with each other while Mill believes that we should have more freedom externally so that we can do what we want as long as it does not harm others. Overall, Locke advocates for a more authoritarian style of government while Mill advocates for a more libertarian style of government.
John Locke states in The Second Treatise of Government that “all men are in a state of complete freedom to order their actions and dispose of their property and persons as they see fit, within the limits set by the law of nature, without asking permission or depending on the will of any other person.” (Locke 4) According to Locke, man is in a state of nature; therefore he has only reason to limit his liberty.
John Stuart Mill, in On Liberty, takes a different view of man in nature. Mill believes that if left unrestricted, man will eventually harm himself and others. “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.
His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” (Mill 9) Mill believes that it is the role of the government to protect individuals from themselves and others in order to preserve their liberty. In this paper, I will compare Locke’s belief in natural liberty with Mill’s belief in restricted liberty and discuss the implications of each on society.
John Locke, however, makes clear that a person may not harm himself or any other creature in his care unless he has a good cause to do so. To be free, according to Locke, requires the capacity and opportunity to acquire and benefit from property. John Stuart Mill describes liberty as it applies to three domains: each domain increasingly encompasses and defines additional elements relating to political society.
Mill defines negative liberty as freedom from external restraint or compulsion. John Stuart Mill’s and John Locke’s theories of liberty are two of the most influential and well-known in political philosophy. Both theories have been highly debated and critiqued by many scholars over the years. In this essay, I will compare and contrast the two theories, highlighting the key aspects of each. I will start with a brief overview of Locke’s theory before discussing Mill’s more in-depth.
Locke’s theory of liberty is based on natural rights. He believes that humans are born with certain inherent rights, such as life, liberty, and property. These rights are not given to us by society or the government, but are instead granted to us by God. Locke believes that the government’s role is to protect these natural rights, and that it is the duty of every citizen to obey the law.