'Compare and Contrast the Philisophical Contributions of Nietzsche and Mill Essay\r'

'Comp atomic number 18 and tune the philosophical contri preciselyions Nietzsche and lounge make to our arrangement of semi semi authoritiesal and friendly absolutism.\r\nBoth philosophers, Nietzsche and Mill make contrastive and connatural contributions to our understanding of the two terms. I consecrate in mind explore how each philosopher does this and the differences and similarities between their two philosophies.\r\nin the set forthning comparing and contrasting the contributions of both Nietzsche and Mill to our understanding of semipolitical and cordial totalitarianism, it is important to ready simply what these terms mean, and to distinguish between the two. semipolitical shogunate on the one achieve is the delusion of ordained indecorousness by a tyrant to an soulist or a collective group of separates. That is, a situation where a certain authority of tone is dictated to citizens through the presence of obstacles, barriers or constraints. If we inhabitd in a politically tyrannical club, we would be feeling story under the accountant of a dictator, ruled by a single g ein truthplacenment activity body. Further much, the pressure for an undivided to conform to these â€Å"rules” corporation be seen as a result of ones fear of mankind dislike †a recognised form of mixer monocracy.\r\nPhilosopher John Stewart Mill, strictly educated by his philosopher father James Mill, began make contributions to politics and philosophy from the early 1830s, when he wrote copiously on such(prenominal) political and philosophical matters. He was prominently influenced by the works of Jeremy Bentham and his interested in Utilitarianism.\r\nMill’s book, â€Å"On Liberty” print in 1859 and written with his wife, power saw Mill chance upon a steering from the Utilitarian nonion that common soldier conversance was necessary for frugal and g everyplacenment efficiency and mod the classical defence o f individual liberty as a value in itself-importance. It counsellingd moral and economic freedom of individuals from the commonwealth. His basic argument is simple: self-reliance from political and affable tyranny is pricy because it allows for impudent and improved ideas to evolve and good because liberty ever puts old ideas to the test. â€\r\nHis ideas were and hushed ar enormously prestigious and the ideas presented remain the basis of a great deal political thought.\r\nIn â€Å"On Liberty” Mill refers to tyrannical societies of the preceding(a) where liberty meant protection from the tyranny of political rulers. They consisted of a g everyplacening One or a governing tribe, who derived their authority from inheritance or conquest. (NZ) To keep the wispyer members of alliance from cosmos preyed upon by â€Å"innumerable vultures” it was thought that there should be an â€Å"animal of prey” stronger than the rest. †The aim being to set limits to the power of the tyrant.\r\nWith this came a time where, as benignant affairs progressed, what was penuryed was that rulers should be identify with the people, and that their interests should be the interests of the whole nation. This, Mill refers to as â€Å"the tyranny of the mass” which was held in â€Å"dread” (and commonly still is.) At this point, Mill is suggesting that majority rule itself could gravel a tyranny and that the abolishion of minorities by the majority should be taken as a skilful threat to a fair and skilful society. Mill claims that â€Å"society as a whole foul tooth issue wrong mandates and practice a tyranny more formidable than m any kinds of political oppression.” He argues therefore that protection against political tyranny is non enough: there also conveys to be protection from brotherly tyranny or â€Å"the tyranny of prevailing opinion” the latter being harder to strain protection from.\r\nMill saw that this kind of political tyranny could pr howevert the start out(a)ment of individualistic behavior. some(prenominal)(prenominal) tyrannies could work in two ways: through the adoption of laws which operate against idiosyncratic, non conforming or disagree individuals. Or, through the power or pressure of public opinion, (which is notoriously prone to error, superstition or usance.) thus Mill argued that public opinion should not be a law that everyone should conform to, and that the individual should pretend protection of the law against the prevailing sentiments of society. †Essentially, we each need freedom to develop our individuality.\r\nSo for Mill, the central occupation is therefore to establish the legitimate extent to which the state understructure interfere in the affairs of individuals whilst maintaining gratifying levels of individuality. Mill’s answer is transcend and is demo through his â€Å"Harm teaching” which states that â₠¬Å"the only adjudicate for which power can be adjustful(prenominal)ly exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his forget, is to pr nonethelesst impose on _or_ oppress to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.”\r\n-So Mill is referring to not just any harm, but specifically physical harm. If a individual is harmed then his or her sovereignty over self no long exists because sovereignty is by and by all the foundational position of power; this is Mill’s justification of the harm principle. Children and those who cannot take c be of themselves are allowed to be interfered with beyond the harm principle as they may well harm themselves unintentionally; such children and those who cannot take care of themselves do\r\nnot, and cannot, engender sovereignty over self.\r\nApplying Mill’s Harm Principle strictly to current law would therefore remove â€Å"paternalistic” laws. For example there would be no reason to prohibit the laws prohibiting suicide, or drug taking or the wearing of seatbelts or crash helmets. From this perspective, laws that set out to control such self regarding actions are wrong. They impede the possibilities for individual development; the state should not be like an over protective parent, as for\r\nMill, this does zilch but prevent the development of unspoiledy get along with adults.\r\nMill’s argument primarily questions what is the rightful limit to the sovereignty of the individual over himself? And how much of human life should be assigned to individuality, and how much to society? Mill says, to individuality should belong the element of life in which the individual is interested: to society, the quit which chiefly interests society. Essentially, what are the limits of the law and what are the abilities of the individual?\r\nEvidently for Mill, the idea that the state should be entangled in â€Å"self regarding” actions is en tirely wrong. The individual moldiness be allowed maximum freedom of choice in matters that are to do with ad hominem choice His avouchment rebounds his own strong commitment to the idea of individual liberty and the belief that â€Å"free individuals” develop into more fully formed human beings. His arguments fundamentally reflect a strong belief in human reasoning and the ability for all of us to develop into mature autonomous individuals. Mill’s set near is therefore libertarian in that he saw the hold controlling state as a danger: whereas a society populated with free forecast individuals is a mature and successful society.\r\nSpecifically referring to social tyranny, Mill states that â€Å"though society is not founded on a contract, everyone who receives the protection of society owes a invert for the benefit” †meaning, if you conform to society, or public opinion, you lead receive protection, i.e. you leave behind not be condemned by soc iety.\r\n†Mill furthermore claims that it would be a great misunderstanding to suppose that this doctrine is one of egotistical indifference about the well being of others. †in that respect is indeed a need for an increase in the exertion of promoting the good of others, but Mill feels this can be done without physically or mentally punishing those who be withstand in a way that people don’t agree with. â€\r\nâ€Å" kindliness can distinguish other instrument than whips and scourges, either of the literal or metaphorical sort”\r\nSo, if a person shows â€Å"rashness, obstinacy or self egoism” or pursues â€Å"animal pleasures” at the expense of those of whimsy and intellect, it is expected that they volition be lowered in the opinion of others. But, Mill makes it clear that we are not bound to seek the society of such an individual. †We feature a right to avoid it, and a right to caution others against the individual. â€Å"If he displeases us, we my express our distaste: but we shall not feel called upon to make his life disquieting” †So if an individual has made a inquisitive choice, we shouldn’t condemn them further. †â€Å"If he has decayed his life by mismanagement, we shall not for that reason desire to spoil it further”\r\nAt this point, Mill makes a clear property between the part of a person’s life which concerns only himself and that which concerns others. He questions how the occupy of a member of society can be a matter of indifference to the rest of society, â€Å"no person is entirely isolated.” If he damages his property, he does harm to those who derived support from it, or if he deteriorates his physical faculties, he flummoxs a burden on others. So even if his actions do no direct harm to others, he is never the less detrimental by example.\r\nAs a liberalist, Mill stresses the importance of the individual and freedom. In a liberal sense, freedom agent individual freedom. You are at â€Å"liberty” to do as you wish, there are no constraints upon how you opt to live your life, you are able, unhindered by tradition or inherited position to achieve your full potential. This idea opposes the characteristic of political tyranny †i.e. the imposition of positive freedom; restriction and barriers.\r\nAs Isaiah Berlin explained, controvert and positive liberty are not unless two distinct kinds of liberty; they can be seen as rival, incompatible interpretations of a single political ideal. There are disparate ways to define liberty within a society. Isaiah Berlin talks about the two different suits.\r\nBerlin agrees with the idea of minus liberty and thinks the purpose of government is not to show any visions of life; quite an, it is to give them freedom to run across out for themselves what the good life is. Berlin supposes that there should be a small government that will protect everyone’s indivi dual rights. In a society where negative liberty is prevalent problems begin to a find when you begin to worry about government and not your private life. Negative liberty also allows everyone to have a sphere of rights. You are also able to be lessen what you want and you have more self-control, because there is no pressure to conform to the â€Å"norm” of the community in order to keep the society running smoothly.\r\nRousseau, an inspire for positive liberty thinks that self-mastery is necessary for us as individuals and says that we should want to be the masters of our own life. confirmative liberty is, ” Wishing to be a subject, not an object; to be moved by reasons, by conscious purposes, which are my own, not by causes which happen upon me, as it were, from outside.” By participating in your government and thinking for yourself you can achieve self mastery. By having political self-mastery you are free to form a society which forms your set, which leads to country.\r\nMill, as a liberalist, believes there ought to be a minimum area of personal freedom which on no account can be violated. Mill says, â€Å"If this boundary is overstepped, the individual will find himself in an area too narrow for even that minimum development of his natural faculties which alone makes it realizable to pursue, and even conceive, the various ends which men hold good or right or sacred.” Mill says there moldiness a certain amount of personal freedom so that you grow as an individual, so therefore, there needs to be a distinction between private life and public authority. ‘ freedom for the pike is death for the minnows’; the liberty of some must depend on the restraint of others. In this type of society some people are held back for the betterment of others. The idea that for every person on top there must be person below them must be accepted.\r\nThe other philosopher in question, Frederic Nietzsche, German philosopher of the lat e 19th century challenged the foundations of bargained-down faith and Christianity. He believed in life, creativity, health, and the realities of the mankind we live in, rather than those situated in a realism beyond.\r\nLike Mill, Nietzsche wanted to replace old values with mod ones. He wanted to move towards a impertinently type of human being. †â€Å"The Uberman” In Nietzsche’s writing, â€Å"Beyond Good and Evil” he speaks of the â€Å"new philosophers” †individuals of ‘socio †intellectual status’ who must coat the way forward for a new world. â€\r\nWho must rise above the confinements of political and social tyranny. Essentially, through asseverate their â€Å"will to power.” Nietzsche refers to these individuals as the aristocrats, the elites. These â€Å"noble” men will assert their will to power. †An ability that will have been passed down from generations.\r\nThe new philosophers or †Å"noble plow” will possess the â€Å"master morality” the morality of the aristocratic, that which makes values for others and sees itself as noble.\r\nAt this point, Nietzsche introduces the ‘notion of high quality’ †the idea that these â€Å"free spirits” or new philosophers will assume a place of favourable position in the social and intellectual hierarchy over those who are confined by political and social tyranny. In several aphorisms, he emphasizes a higher(prenominal) type of man, one who believes and demands an order of rank and disdains democracy and equality. Those inferior individuals, he refers to as â€Å"the lot.” The herd give to social and political tyranny, and so are â€Å" slaves” to it †and they can not change. †It is not in their genes. It is ok for the herd to be confined by political and social tyranny, but not for the elites. †The elites must be the prevalent force, not controlled by a f orce.\r\nNietzsche’s primitive principle is â€Å"the will to power.” Nietzsche refers to it as â€Å"an essence of life.” For Nietzsche, the key driving force of change is will. All elbow greases come from a will to power, which is; the drive for freedom and command over other things. We see it in our fooling lives; in every argument there is a striving force for mastery and victory; even in the hierarchical nature of organisations e.g. manager vs. worker, teacher vs. pupil, politicians, preachers and even in the sex act itself. But, for Nietzsche, political and social tyranny seeks to tame this primeval drive and to suppress it. It is the weak and the herd who let their desires and will be suppressed. It is the role and duty of the ‘new philosopher’ to tame it.\r\nNietzsche strongly attacks religion. Especially Christianity. For Nietzsche, religion is a raw manifestation of political and social tyranny. Religion seeks to suppress the will to power. He refers to religion as â€Å"an on-going suicide of reason” and has similarities with Freud in that he thinks religion is a ‘neurosis’ or mental illness. â€Å"wheresoever the religious neurosis has appeared on earth we find it tied to three dangerous dietary prescriptions: solitude, moderation and sexual abstinence.” So for Nietzsche, being a Christian, actor denying ones desires, it means self sacrifice for the sake of divinity fudge (whom he believes is dead) and showing pity and charity for others allegedly leads to the elevation of the weak-minded.\r\nNietzsche believes we shouldn’t show such charitable acts, or make unnatural sacrifices. Christians are the herd, because they come up such beliefs and live their lives by them. The herd are not in control of their lives, for they live by a set of principles that are not their own. Christianity as a form of tyranny takes over the individual. We self mutilate when we feel guilty. N ietzsche says we shouldn’t feel guilty, as its better to do something and experience it, taking from it what we will, rather than be told not to do it at all. Political and social tyranny does not give an individual the chance to do this and places restrictions upon the individual.\r\nLike Mill, Nietzsche valued individualization above all else, but he saw that as a result of the acquiescence to social and political tyranny (e.g. religion) followed a â€Å"herd wittiness” where everybody follows one another for fear of disapproval by public opinion, or in the case of religion, disapproval by God. The herd has ‘given up’ their will to political and social tyranny. And so are weak to their superiors, as reflected in their values.\r\nBut Nietzsche suggests that people want this. He refers to slaves wanting and accepting political and social tyranny, and relating to the modern manifestation of this through religion, it provides truth and certainty. The slave is led by a superior guide, and wants to be, because it is comforting. So hence, Nietzsche sees the Enlightenment or ‘age of reason’ as ‘enraging to the slave’ because it removes an ‘Absolute Truth’ I.e. God. So forth, the slaves have to find their own truths.\r\nBoth philosophers contribute from different stand points. Mill on one hand speaks from a liberalist perspective. Liberals see humans as essentially rational thinking creatures capable of making certain decisions and despises the kind of paternalistic controls of a political tyranny that characterised the previous feudal period. Where Nietzsche on the other hand comes from an elitist standpoint. So, for Nietzsche, the close â€Å"human” or natural of societies are those based on aristocratic principles.\r\nThus, societies with clear and very wide social class divides are the most appropriate of humanity. Clearly defined class distinctions that Nietzsche would have liked are th e times of the Ancient Greeks, Romans, feudalism and even aspects of Nazism. †Orders in which richness, excess, cruelty and sensuality were encouraged. This is where a major difference between Nietzsche’s philosophy and Mill’s becomes apparent. Mill criticises the political control of a tyrant on an individual’s freedom, yet\r\nNietzsche claims that these aristocrats are â€Å"living for themselves” The aristocrats have assert their will to power over the people. He justifies this by saying that these societies are natural, because the will to power was exercised properly, by the powerful over the weak.\r\nBoth have similar views on the topic of religion, arguing that no longer should one set of religious truths be compel on a population. To move forward, to progress, is to explore the world through the exercise of human reason and small enquiry. For Nietzsche, we must continually question everything, for there is no absolute truth. We have to fin d our own truth. We do this by being individual, and not following a herd. For Mill, we are rational thinkers, and bases his theory on this view †that we will come to sensible conclusions.\r\nHence, both philosophers advocate maximising negative liberty as a necessary condition for human flourishing. With the freedom to be individual without the barriers or constraints of tyranny, we as a society and as individuals’ progress and new ideas are formed. newfound values are made, replacing old ones. The Elitist vs. the Liberalist progression is where the two philosophers differ in attitudes. Taking into shape a rejection of negative liberty, this could be used to pave the way for an alternative account.\r\n'