For example there would be no reason to prohibit the laws prohibiting suicide, or drug taking or the wearing of seatbelts or crash helmets. At this point, Mill is suggesting that majority rule itself could become a tyranny and that the suppression of minorities by the majority should be taken as a serious threat to a fair and just society.
Nietzsche refers to these individuals as the aristocrats, the elites. Rousseau, an advocate 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.
They stunt the possibilities for individual development; the state should not be like an over protective parent, as for Mill, this does nothing but prevent the development of fully mature adults.
This is called for all the more by the inclusion in On Liberty of a passage similar to the explanation of his purpose in the conversation with Grote: Mill says, to individuality should belong the part of life in which the individual is interested: In a society where negative liberty is prevalent problems begin to arise when you begin to worry about government and not your private life.
Christians are the herd, because they follow such beliefs and live their lives by them. This is how he regarded it. Why should the immune human being choose not to commit the profitable crime? Nietzsche does not claim that either the noble or the ignoble are the true moral values.
So for Nietzsche, being a Christian, means denying ones desires, it means self sacrifice for the sake of God whom he believes is dead and showing pity and charity for others allegedly leads to the elevation of the weak-minded.
And how much of human life should be assigned to individuality, and how much to society?
How to cite this page Choose cite format: In a liberal sense, freedom means individual freedom. So even if his actions do no direct harm to others, he is never the less detrimental by example. The former simply separates the noble ideals as good and therefore, without giving the ignoble any thought, anything that is different must be bad.
We can understand his account by exploring the first part that describes the genealogy of moral valuation and then by understanding the critique that grows out of the genealogy. For Nietzsche it is a lie. Duty does not necessarily carry with it absolute necessity.
For Nietzsche, religion is a modern manifestation of political and social tyranny.
Liberals see humans as essentially rational thinking creatures capable of making informed decisions and despises the kind of paternalistic controls of a political tyranny that characterised the previous feudal period.
Kant was the first between the two to develop his theory of morals. Of which it must be anything that is favorable to him, he will never care if it will hurt other people.
He discards Kant as a nihilist that by not exploring the origin of morals cannot justly claim to understand them. He explains the origin of the ignoble values as a negation, out of resentment, of the first noble values. Kant emphasizes the categorical imperative as the right moral choice over the hypothetical imperative.
Negative liberty also allows everyone to have a sphere of rights. By having political self-mastery you are free to form a society which forms your values, which leads to democracy. He then proceeds to claim that the human being is by nature not a promise keeping animal.
In lack of a better alternative resentment was born. Mill saw that this kind of political tyranny could prevent the development of individualistic behavior.
New values are made, replacing old ones. Or, through the power or pressure of public opinion, which is notoriously prone to error, superstition or tradition.
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.
Isaiah Berlin talks about the two different types. A moral choice is made purely by the action being just and not by the profit or loss that is caused by it.
His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. The hypothetical imperative takes into account the consequence by treating an action purely as a means towards a desired end, and not by carrying any moral implications in its maxim.
The nobility was the first to form its own moral values by simply reinstating their own ideals as a good thing to do, whereas anything that is not in accordance with those ideals is naturally deemed to be bad. With this came a time where, as human affairs progressed, what was wanted was that rulers should be identified with the people, and that their interests should be the interests of the whole nation.For an ethics paper I have to compare a narrow point that Nietzsche and Kant both talk about and it has to be something they disagree about.
I'm having trouble finding something they both talk about and disagree on. In class we have read Kant's Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals and Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morals.
Compare and contrast the philosophical contributions Nietzsche and Mill Both philosophers, Nietzsche and Mill make contrasting and similar contributions to our understanding of the two terms. I intend explore how each philosopher does this and the differences and similarities between their two philosophies.
John Stuart Mill on the other hand was a British philosopher born in and died in He also strongly contributed to the development of philosophical views that have continued to influence different aspects in different disciplines like sociology, politics and economy.
Compare and Contrast the Philisophical Contributions of Nietzsche and Mill to our understanding of political and social tyranny. Extracts from this document Introduction. Compare and contrast the philosophical contributions Nietzsche and Mill make to our understanding of political and social tyranny.
Both philosophers, Nietzsche and Mill make contrasting and similar contributions to our understanding of the two terms. Comparing John Stewart Mill and Nietzsche Words | 7 Pages. The Discourse of Mill and Nietzsche, Can Mill Overcome While it appears, on the outside, that John Stewart Mill contradicts Nietzsche’s idea that the mind serves deeper than our inner human drive, however, the story of .Download