Freedom Under The Gaze Of John Stuart Mill

Freedom under the gaze of John Stuart Mill

The nineteenth century marks a before and after in the history of political theory, since it is a century that gives rise to political modernization and the conception of the same. Europe suffers a process of transformations, since at the beginning they sought to return to the proper values ​​of the Vienna Congress, until in the second half of the century they revive everything they sought to obstruct: nationalism and liberalism, values ​​that end up being exarcerbados. In this question that John Stuart Mill’s ideals mark an important antecedent, since his perception of freedom is essential, not only for the time, but for the conception of freedom in the West. Therefore, starting from this premise, in the following essay it will seek to explore the definition of the freedom of one of the most influential authors for its time and our hemisphere, carrying out a critique of it and focusing it on the theories of the theories of the international relations.

First, John Stuart Mill grew up in the city of London under an environment influenced by the economy. Stuart was an economist and philosopher who was raised under the precepts of Emilio de Rousseau, and therefore, it was also a young man who despite the young age of him stood out before the different knowledge he possessed. He was versatile in Greek and Latin, just as he began with his economic knowledge at thirteen, based on his education in the works of Adam Smith and David Ricardo (biographies and lives, SF).

It should be noted that at the young age of 17, John Stuart Mill was already working for the Eastern Indies Company in the alleged British subcontinent, India. He was in charge of ensuring the office for relations with the Indian states and years later he held a place in the House of Commons, where the controversy would be his favorite friend, since he sought to support the less privileged classes, for example, for example, He sought to urge equal rights for women (biographies and lives, SF).

One of the works with which he highlighted was "about freedom", which according to the author Jesús Zaratiegui, "is considered in the Anglo -Saxon tradition as the perfect manual of the Democrat and a lucky definition of freedom". Under this same precept, the need to analyze not only his work is born, but all the conception he has of freedom (Zarathiegui, J. 2001).

One of the first concepts that explores is the fact that individual rights are essential for freedom to be maintained, a fact that goes against what democracy is essence, but it is in this same issue that the time can be appreciated that John Stuart Mill was living, one in which imperialism ruled as a process and that, therefore, the industrial revolution itself was booming (Zaratiegui, J. 2001). Therefore, labor enslavement was a reality that he had to face day by day, not because he lived it, but because he lived with it due to his privileged social status.

It is then that in his main work he exposes four principles in which he develops the concept he has of freedom, which are: freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, freedom of behavior and freedom of cooperation, which will be explained Next (Zarathiegui, J. 2001).

In the first instance we must talk about the principle of autonomy, which involves freedom of conscience. In this area, the nature of John Stuart Mill. Therefore, the doctrines that are based on the center of power and the most important thing of a society is absolutely opposed, since it observes the individual as an essential factor for the development of society itself and without the same, this would be unable to succeed any (Zarathiegui, J. 2001).

The autonomous man is the one who gives himself the laws of his, just as Zaratiegui mentions, although the nature of this thought is due to Immanuel Kant; While the heteronomo is the one who maintains a dependency towards the wills that are imposed on him (Zarathiegui, J. 2001).

The second principle is that of free discussion, that is, that of freedom of expression. Some background that is had are the actions that John Milton carried out, where he distributed a pamphlet that had as a subtitle allusion to freedom of the press, basically, to respect it in its entirety. Events like this exist many, where people, given censorship on specific issues, end up rebel.

In this principle, the argument that exposes, in my view, can be confused with the debauchery since, citing Zaratiegui, the following is said: “He has the same right to impose his ideas a single person on the rest of the men that vice versa ”, however, it seems to me that this point of view is not entirely correct for the current conception of freedom, however, its popular conception tends to be confused with debauchery, an issue that John Stuart Mill seems to refer. The imposition is not correct, but the practice of exchange of ideas yes, which is fair to what does allusion. Talk about we usually be closed to the exchange of ideas in view of what we are, colloquially speaking, married to our own thoughts. However, due to the exchange of information, progress is possible, because it gives rise to a critical analysis of the ideas that are already established (Zarathiegui, J. 2001).

I agree with this point because, after all, how would the change of conservative ideas that dominated in the first half of the nineteenth century in the European order be achieved if people did not challenge that alleged dogma? Apart, without the exchange of ideas, the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 would not have been possible without the mutual influence of ideologies. An event took place in some country and, due to the closeness he had with another, these ideas began to spread through the hemisphere. The change that is achieved allows progress that ends up adapting to the needs of the individual, a fact that also seems curious because it reveals the autonomous man, which is built based on what he wants (nationalism), not what he impose (conservatism) (Zarathiegui, J. 2001).

Due to the nature of this principle, I can think of a phrase from Helvecio, which says “I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to express it”, because after all it refers to an individual level, as John Stuart Mill does.

The third principle is that of spontaneity, that is, freedom of conduct, and to be able to illustrate it I will use an appointment of John Stuart Mill’s work recovered from Zarathiegui’s article:

“It demands freedom of tastes and provisions; Configure the plan of our life, do what we please, attending to the consequences of our actions, and as long as we do not harm others ”(Zaratiegui, J. 2001).

This principle is quite simple to understand in view of the fact that we must live our life and this has to be done in our own style, our own conception, allowing everyone to raise a way of living one’s life, giving plurality in the society. After all, when the personality is cultivated fully, men develop (Zaratiegui, J. 2001).

The idea even seems romantic, but John Stuart Mill invites people to be themselves. Invites us to carry it out, a fact that is in our reality, because the imposition of ideas is no longer well seen. It is curious to read John Stuart Mill, a nineteenth -century philosopher and economist, because there is no doubt that his ideals should have been quite revolutionary for his time. The way in which he thought is undoubted. 2001).

The last principle is to avoid harming others, that of freedom of cooperation, because the absence of a concordance in ideas causes the absence of consensus and invites cooperation, but without this last point society ends up being left drifting and there is an undeniable imbalance. So, John Stuart Mill mentions that he must urged the individual not to harm the other. Similarly, he says that "society has an obligation to prevent anyone from damaging itself" (Zaratiegui, J. 2001).

However, there is a point that stands out and that seems to me vital in view of the fact that everything established is also for governments to take it into account, and that, the damage caused towards the individual violates our rights, by what that society, in this case the State, has the obligation to protect us.

However, John Stuart Mill believes that if someone’s sensitivity is violated, it is sufficient reason for actions to be taken in this regard, but this is not applicable to our time, because when the exchange of ideas to which he invites is carried out , on more than one occasion there is usually a person who, not combining with the way of the other individual, his sensitivity is affected, but it is no reason for an intervention that alludes to justice.

However, despite the fact that what is raised in its four principles seems ideal to my own inclination towards liberal ideologies, I must also take into account that these are issues that allude to the individual and then, an absence of the application is observed In the states themselves, who, from a realistic point of view, are those that maintain power.

I consider that the individual is important and vital for societies, but when moving and motivated by the Government, it must also be considered that morality and reason are not enough to move the interests of people who are in power. While inviting the individual’s incorruptibility, how would this use if the rulers and statesmen are unable to ensure this morality of the individual?

Focusing it to international relations, from a liberal point of view, what John Stuart Mill says would be ideal and simple to follow since, just as John Locke argues, human nature is good by nature. However, as I said, I combined with liberal ideologies, but when judging what Mill says from the realistic theory of international relations, it turns out to be unrealistic since it advocates from morality, which clashes with realism. After all, political realism and one of the most prominent authors are Thomas Hobbes, who says that the human is selfish by nature and watches over their own interests, which in international relations can also be seen at the level State, applying exactly the same.

From the rational action theory, it is preferable to sacrifice lives if this will achieve an economic or political benefit to the State, so what will stop or motivate individuals? If the statesmen themselves are the ones who do not advocate the ideal.

In conclusion, the four principles of John Stuart Mill seem suitable to me and I combine a lot with them in more than one aspect, because I really consider that they apply in reality, but the premise itself, granting these guides to the individual seems unrealistic to me, I as a person, and also from a realistic point of view of international relations theory. I must take into account that these aspects are essential, because the idea of ​​what individuals are capable of doing, without first considering what is beyond control of them comes to romant.

The idea of ​​a heterogenic man also becomes fantasy, because if one of the precepts is not fulfilled (a quite probable issue due to the absence of perfection in individuals), how does it ensure that the balance will be maintained?

John Stuart Mill was undoubtedly an advanced philosopher for his time and marked the concept of freedom we have in the West. Today we are able to observe the four principles of him, not only at the time of the 19th century, but also in our reality, two centuries after his own existence.

Bibliography

• Biographies and lives (SF). John Stuart Mill. Available at https: // www.Biography andVidas.com/biography/m/million.HTM [recovered on May 8, 2019]
• Zaratiegui, Jesús M., John Stuart Mill: An economist who loves freedom. Administration Notebooks [online] 2001, 14 (June): [Date of consultation: May 9, 2019] Available at: ISSN 0120-3592
• Bisbal, m. (2006). Yearbook of Philosophy of Law, ISSN 0518-0872, No. 23, 2006, pages. 13-36