Suchergebnisse

The subject of this essay is political, and therefore social, philosophy; and therefore, ethics. We want to know whether the right thing for a society to do is to incorporate in its structure requirements that we bring about equality, or liberty, or both if they are compatible, and if incompatible then which if either, or what sort of mix if they can to some degree be mixed. But this fairly succinct statement of the issue before us requires considerable clarification, even as a statment of the issue. For it is widely, and in my view correctly, held thatsomesort of equality is utterly fundamental in these matters. We seek a principle, or principles, that apply to all, are the same for all. In that sense, certainly, equality is fundamental and inescapable. But this is a very thin sort of "equality."It will almost equally widely be agreed that the principles in question should in some more interesting sense "treat" people equally, e.g., by allotting to all the same set of rights, and moreover, rights that are – again we have to say "in some sense" – nonarbitrary, so that whatever they are, persons of all races, sexes, and so on will have the same fundamental rights assigned to them. Taking this to be, again, essentially uncontroversial, though not without potentially worrisome points of unclarity, it needs, now, to be pointed out that this characterization does not settle the issue that this essay is concerned with. That issue is abouteconomicmatters in particular.

Such is the rhetorical appeal of the idea of liberty that a variety of political philosophiesclaim to honour it. Republicans and Marxists, no less than libertarians and liberals,maintain that they and they alone are the true defenders of freedom. The literature ofcontemporary political theory is thus replete with rival analyses of the meaning ofliberty, and disputes about its measurement, distribution and institutional requirements. Our aim here is to gain some understanding of the meaning and the conditionsof liberty by working through the thicket of contemporary argument, though we mayhave to rest content with a better knowledge of the terrain.

Discussed and debated from time immemorial, the concept of personal liberty went without codification until the publication of this enduring work which applies an ethical system of utilitarianism to society and the state which to this day remains well known and studied.

At the time it was published in 1859, John Stuart Mill's On Liberty was a radical and controversial work; it argued for the right of individuals to possess freedom from the state in moral and economic matters. Mill declares that "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign", contrasting this with the "tyranny of the majority." He states that an individual can do anything they like as long as it doesn't harm another - the well-known...

Intro -- Contents -- Editorial Note -- David Bromwich: A Note on the Life and Thought of John Stuart Mill -- George Kateb: A Reading of On Liberty -- On Liberty -- A Note on the Text -- Chapter I: Introductory -- Chapter II: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion -- Chapter III: Of Individuality, as One of the Elements of Well-Being -- Chapter IV: Of the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual -- Chapter V: Applications -- Rethinking On Liberty -- Owen Fiss: A Freedom Both Personal and Political -- Richard A. Posner: On Liberty: A Revaluation -- Jean Bethke Elshtain: Mill's Liberty and the Problem of Authority -- Jeremy Waldron: Mill as a Critic of Culture and Society -- Bibliography.