The state’s role in an individual’s life is a central idea in political philosophy. J.S. Mill questioned the limits to which the state had the right to interfere with the freedom of an individual. He developed a principle, which centered on the concept of harm caused by one individual against another individual. Mill then used his harm principle to argue against the paternalistic nature of the state. He argued the nature of the state and he also argued its potential role as serving the public with a means to protect them from harm. By explaining his views on the concepts of harm, paternalism, and civic duty, we can understand his evaluation of the states’ interferencewith the freedom of individuals.
The harm principle, as developed by Mill, …show more content…
He thought that an individual who receives the benefit of living in a community must participate in some of it’s key state functions. Some of these duties would include: contributing to the defense of your state in a time of war, bearing witness to a crime in a court of law, participating in a jury, and contributing to basic social welfare. Mill also stressed that education plays an importantrole in contributing to the maturity and competency of the individual. Education would then be added to his list of key civic duties. To sum up his arguments, he thought that the civilian had a duty to protect and participate at the state’s basic levels, and that the state is justified to exist in order protect individual’s from …show more content…
Mill’s idea that civic duties like protecting the state during war time, participating in the court system, and contributing to social welfare like education contradict his idea that the individual should have freedom of conscience. The state demands participation from birth. Under a state, the individual will lack the potential for self-development from a consequential rationalization. Instead of political philosophy’s goal of determining the rightful roll of the state in the life of an individual, we should pursue anti-political philosophy in order to abolish the inherent role of the state in the individual’s life. Anti-political philosophy will allow an individual the freedom to benefit from the consequences of their
The harm principle, as developed by Mill, …show more content…
He thought that an individual who receives the benefit of living in a community must participate in some of it’s key state functions. Some of these duties would include: contributing to the defense of your state in a time of war, bearing witness to a crime in a court of law, participating in a jury, and contributing to basic social welfare. Mill also stressed that education plays an importantrole in contributing to the maturity and competency of the individual. Education would then be added to his list of key civic duties. To sum up his arguments, he thought that the civilian had a duty to protect and participate at the state’s basic levels, and that the state is justified to exist in order protect individual’s from …show more content…
Mill’s idea that civic duties like protecting the state during war time, participating in the court system, and contributing to social welfare like education contradict his idea that the individual should have freedom of conscience. The state demands participation from birth. Under a state, the individual will lack the potential for self-development from a consequential rationalization. Instead of political philosophy’s goal of determining the rightful roll of the state in the life of an individual, we should pursue anti-political philosophy in order to abolish the inherent role of the state in the individual’s life. Anti-political philosophy will allow an individual the freedom to benefit from the consequences of their