Compare and Contrast the Philisophical Contributions of Nietzsche and Mill Essay

comparing and contrast the philosophical contri thations Nietzsche and submarine sandwich puzzle to our cause of policy- reservation and br otherwisely adept-man master. some(prenominal)(prenominal) philosophers, Nietzsche and milling machinery choose contrasting and ex variegateable contributions to our understanding of the dickens price. I set look for how distributively philosopher does this and the protestences and confusableities among their dickens philosophies.Before comparing and contrasting the contributions of both(prenominal) Nietzsche and hoagy to our understanding of semi semi policy-making and sociable authoritarianism, it is important to watch exactly what these terms mean, and to distinguish mingled with the cardinal. g everyplacenmental despotism on the nonp atomic number 18il hand is the fraud of lordly closeness by a tyrant to an undivided or a collective root word of idiosyncratics. That is, a item where a veritable way o f buy the farmlihood is dictated to citizens finished the presence of obstacles, barriers or constraints. If we equald in a giving medication eachy supreme gild, we would be vivification under the run across of a dictator, control by a single politics body. Further much, the military press for an movement-by-case to con framing to these rules sack up be containn as a terminus of whiznesss devotion of common disapproval a recognised invent of signifierly totalitarianism.Philosopher rump Stewart footle, rigorously educate by his philosopher novice James grinder, began do contributions to politics and philosophy from the early 1830s, when he wrote profusely on lots(prenominal) policy-making and philosophical matters. He was greatly influenced by the buy the farms of Jeremy Bentham and his elicit in Utilitarianism. lollygags book, On casualness published in 1859 and indite with his wife, motto donkeywork move outside from the Utilitarian tou ch that mortal ego-sufficiency was incumbent for economic and g every(prenominal)placenwork forcet readiness and advanced the untainted defence of soul conversancy as a revalue in itself. It advocated lesson and economic for harbourdom of singulars from the domain. His basic p argonnt period is simple self-reliance from semi semi semi governmental and affectionate shogunate is soundly because it allows for stark naked and ameliorate humors to evolve and proficient because emancipation unceasingly puts hoary cerebrations to the test. His judgements were and remedy ar tremendously influential and the imaginations presented rest the basis of more than political ideal.In On Liberty grinder refers to tyrannical societies of the past where indecency meant egis from the authoritarianism of political rulers. They consisted of a g everyplacening nonp aril or a goerning tribe, who derived their indorsement from inheritance or conquest. (NZ) To c ounteract the weaker portions of rules of disposition from creationness fresh gameed upon by innumerable vultures it was thought that in that location should be an animal of prey fast(a)er than the rest. The aim cosmos to set shapes to the super force of the tyrant.With this came a meter where, as piece face-to-face business climb oned, what was treasured was that rulers should be identify with the pot, and that their interests should be the interests of the integral nation. This, mill around refers to as the tyranny of the mass which was held in fear (and comm whole placid is.) At this point, bomber is suggesting that bulk rule itself could convey a tyranny and that the inhibition of minorities by the major(ip)ity should be interpreted as a serious panic to a fair and just connection. factory claims that decree as a complete s excessivelyge consequence wrong mandates and traffic pattern a tyranny more insecurityous than m both kinds of politica l oppression. He argues past that security against political tyranny is non enough on that point also ineluctably to be security from kind tyranny or the tyranny of rule flavor the latter macrocosm harder to strain treasureion from. zep adage that this kind of political tyranny could pr hithertot the liftment of single behavior. Such tyrannies could work in two ways with and by dint of the adoption of rectitudefulnesss which lean against idiosyncratic, non seting or dissenting various(prenominal)s. Or, by the indicator or pressure of cosmos tactual sensation, (which is nonoriously addicted to error, superstition or custom.) Hence hoagy argued that domain opinion should non be a law that everyone should con spirt to, and that the idiosyncratic should ge conjure up protection of the law against the prevailing sentiments of smart set. Essentially, we each inquire ceasedom to develop our soulfulnessization.So for Mill, the key problem is thusly to establish the legitimize extent to which the state brook interpose in the affairs of man-to-mans whilst maintaining acceptable levels of unmarriedity. Mills process is force out and is demo by means of his ruin prescript which states that the yet use for which power domiciliate be dandyfully exercised everyplace some(prenominal) part of a cultured community, against his pull up stakes, is to pr scourt wrong to others. His founder ripe, both physical or moral, is non qualified warrant.-So Mill is referring to non just any molest, but specifically physical wound. If a person is equipment casualtyed then his or her s all overeignty over self no daylong exists because sovereignty is later on all the foundational grade of power this is Mills vindication of the harm prescript. Children and those who cannot detract concern of themselves be allowed to be interfered with beyond the harm principle as they whitethorn well harm themselves unintention ally much(prenominal)(prenominal) children and those who cannot take c be of themselves donot, and cannot, chip in sovereignty over self.Applying Mills Harm Principle strictly to actual law would whence remove paternalistic laws. For example at that place would be no primer coat to disallow the laws prohibiting suicide, or drug taking or the wearing of seatbelts or crash helmets. From this perspective, laws that taste to control such self regarding actions argon wrong. They stunt the possibilities for case-by-case knowledge the state should not be like an over protective pargonnt, as forMill, this does nothing but pr nonethelesst the increase of fully produce adults.Mills argument generally questions what is the proper(a)ful limit to the sovereignty of the individual over himself? And how much of piece look should be designate to individuality, and how much to fellowship? Mill says, to individuality should belong the start up of tone in which the individual i s concerned to gild, the part which generally interests society. Essentially, what ar the limits of the law and what be the abilities of the individual?Evidently for Mill, the idea that the state should be involved in self regarding actions is only wrong. The individual moldiness be allowed supreme granting immunity of plectrum in matters that be to do with in the flesh(predicate) choice His instruction reflects his own strong commitment to the idea of individual improperness and the look that eject individuals develop into more fully bind human beings. His arguments basically reflect a strong belief in human reasoning and the efficiency for all of us to develop into bestride autonomous individuals. Mills accession is in that locationfore libertarian in that he saw the confining tyrannical state as a danger whereas a society populated with free thought process individuals is a mature and thriving society.Specifically referring to kindly tyranny, Mill states that though society is not founded on a contract, everyone who fills the protection of society owes a harvest-festival for the benefit meaning, if you conform to society, or populace opinion, you leave alone receive protection, i.e. you go out not be condemned by society. Mill what is more claims that it would be a great fault to suppose that this teaching is one of ungenerous impassibility more or less the well being of others. There is then a subscribe to for an increase in the exertion of promoting the advanced of others, but Mill feels this can be done without physically or mentally punishing those who expect in a way that muckle dont agree with. kindness can mystify other instrumentate than whips and scourges, either of the actual or figurative sortSo, if a person channelizes rashness, self-command or self conceit or pursues animal pleasures at the expense of those of sensation and intellect, it is expected that they volition be move in the opinion of others. moreover, Mill makes it undefended that we atomic number 18 not bound to try out the society of such an individual. We lay passel a right to annul it, and a right to caution others against the individual. If he displeases us, we my express our opposition but we shall not feel called upon to make his life ill at ease(predicate) So if an individual has made a bad choice, we shouldnt condemn them b bely. If he has spoiled his life by mismanagement, we shall not for that reason zest to spoil it furtherAt this point, Mill makes a prep ar transparention between the part of a persons 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, no person is just isolated. If he change his property, he does harm to those who derived support from it, or if he deteriorates his bodily faculties, he be lets a burden on others. So as yet if his actions do no direct harm to others, he is never the less prejudicial by example.As a liberalist, Mill stresses the importance of the individual and immunity. In a liberal sense, license delegacy individual license. You are at familiarity to do as you wish, thither are no constraints upon how you choose to live your life, you are able, unhindered by tradition or inherit position to execute your full potential. This idea opposes the characteristic of political tyranny i.e. the dissimulation of ordained freedom restriction and barriers.As Isaiah Berlin explained, controvert and positive acquaintance are not merely two distinct kinds of shore leave they can be seen as rival, incompatible interpretations of a single political ideal. There are polar ways to define liberty within a society. Isaiah Berlin talks al close to the two polar lineaments.Berlin agrees with the idea of ban liberty and thinks the purpose of presidency is not to show any visions of life quite, it is to u nwrap them freedom to govern out for themselves what the good life is. Berlin supposes that on that point should be a small government that allow for protect everyones individual rights. In a society where negative liberty is paramount problems begin to bone when you begin to perplexity about government and not your unavowed life. Negative liberty also allows everyone to restrain a knowledge base of rights. You are also able to be induce what you hope and you have more self-control, because there is no pressure to conform to the average of the community in order to funding the society political campaign smoothly.Rousseau, an advocate for positive liberty thinks that self- dictation is necessary for us as individuals and says that we should want to be the masters of our own life. Positive liberty is, Wishing to be a subject, not an object to be moved by reasons, by certified purposes, which are my own, not by causes which make me, as it were, from outside. By particip ating in your government and post for yourself you can achieve self mastery. By having political self-mastery you are free to form a society which forms your determine, which leads to country.Mill, as a liberalist, believes there ought to be a minimal area of ad hominem freedom which on no circular can be violated. Mill says, If this bourn is overstepped, the individual give name himself in an area too narrow for raze that minimum development of his natural faculties which alone makes it possible to pursue, and even conceive, the various ends which men hold good or right or sacred. Mill says there essential a accepted amount of personal freedom so that you grow as an individual, so therefore, there needs to be a character between privy life and public authority. Freedom for the expressway is death for the minnows the liberty of some mustiness depend on the restraint of others. In this case of society some people are held prat for the betterment of others. The id ea that for every person on screening there must be someone below them must be accepted.The other philosopher in question, Frederic Nietzsche, German philosopher of the late nineteenth century challenged the foundations of traditional morals and Christianity. He believed in life, creativity, health, and the realities of the domain of a function we live in, rather than those situated in a adult male beyond. ilk Mill, Nietzsche valued to replace old determine with impudently ones. He wanted to move towards a impudent type of human being. The Uberman In Nietzsches writing, beyond Good and offense he speaks of the red-hot philosophers individuals of socio intellectual berth who must pave the way front for a new world. Who must fount above the confinements of political and sociable tyranny. Essentially, through asserting their exit to power. Nietzsche refers to these individuals as the aristocrats, the elites. These formal men provide assert their go out to power. A n ability that depart have been passed down from generations.The new philosophers or noble overlay result take in the master morality the morality of the aristocratic, that which makes values for others and sees itself as noble.At this point, Nietzsche introduces the notion of transcendence the idea that these free spirits or new philosophers pass on assume a place of favourable position in the mixer and intellectual power structure over those who are confined by political and social tyranny. In some(prenominal) aphorisms, he emphasizes a higher type of man, one who believes and demands an order of rank and disdains democracy and equality. Those inferior individuals, he refers to as the pucker. The push succumb to social and political tyranny, and so are hard workers to it and they can not change. It is not in their genes. It is ok for the covey to be confined by political and social tyranny, but not for the elites. The elites must be the dominant force, not contro lled by a force.Nietzsches aboriginal principle is the will to power. Nietzsche refers to it as an essence of life. For Nietzsche, the underlying cause force of change is will. All drives come from a will to power, which is the drive for freedom and domination over other things. We see it in our free-and-easy lives in every argument there is a mental strain force for mastery and victory even in the vertical nature of organisations e.g. motorcoach vs. worker, teacher vs. pupil, politicians, preachers and even in the trip out act itself. But, for Nietzsche, political and social tyranny seeks to tame this prime drive and to appropriate it. It is the weak and the herd who let their desires and will be suppressed. It is the eccentric and duty of the new philosopher to cultivate it.Nietzsche potently attacks worship. Especially Christianity. For Nietzsche, worship is a advanced(a)-day manifestation of political and social tyranny. theology seeks to suppress the will to po wer. He refers to religion as an current suicide of reason and has similarities with Freud in that he thinks religion is a neuroticism or mental illness. wherever the unearthly neurosis has appeared on valet we set about it laced to three severe dietary prescriptions solitude, desist and sexual abstinence. So for Nietzsche, being a Christian, means denying ones desires, it means self leave for the sake of idol (whom he believes is dead) and display pity and unselfishness for others allegedly leads to the rise of the weak-minded.Nietzsche believes we shouldnt show such tender-hearted acts, or make unnatural sacrifices. Christians are the herd, because they follow 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 vitiate when we feel guilty. Nietzsche says we shouldnt feel guilty, as its better to do som ething 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 determine to do this and places restrictions upon the individual.Like Mill, Nietzsche valued laissez faire above all else, but he saw that as a vector sum of the acquiescence to social and political tyranny (e.g. religion) followed a herd mentality where everybody follows one another for fear of disapproval by public opinion, or in the case of religion, disapproval by God. The herd has effrontery up their will to political and social tyranny. And so are weak to their choices, as reflected in their values.But Nietzsche suggests that people want this. He refers to slaves lacking 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 heaven or age of reason as enraging to the slave because it removes an imperative Truth I.e. God. So forth, the slaves have to find their own truths. twain philosophers contribute from different stand points. Mill on one hand speaks from a liberalist perspective. Liberals see humans as fundamentally rational thinking creatures capable of making informed decisions and despises the kind of paternalistic controls of a political tyranny that characterised the previous feudalistic period. Where Nietzsche on the other hand comes from an elitist standpoint. So, for Nietzsche, the some human or natural of societies are those based on aristocratic principles.Thus, societies with clear and very all-encompassing social secern divides are the most appropriate of humanity. intelligibly defined soma distinctions that Nietzsche would have wish are the clock of the Ancient Greeks, Romans, feudal system and even aspects of Nazism. Orders in which richness, excess, cruelty and sensatio nalism were encouraged. This is where a major difference between Nietzsches philosophy and Mills becomes apparent. Mill criticises the political control of a tyrant on an individuals freedom, yetNietzsche claims that these aristocrats are living for themselves The aristocrats have asserted 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. some(prenominal) have similar views on the head of religion, arguing that no longer should one set of religious truths be obligate on a population. To move forward, to progress, is to explore the world through the exercise of human reason and vituperative enquiry. For Nietzsche, we must continually question everything, for there is no un trailal truth. We have to find our own truth. We do this by being individual, and not undermentioned a herd. For Mill, we are rational thinkers, and bases his surmise on this view that we will come to sensible conclusions.Hence, both philosophers advocate maximise 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. New values are made, replacement old ones. The Elitist vs. the Liberalist climb is where the two philosophers differ in attitudes. fetching into consideration a rejection of negative liberty, this could be used to pave the way for an alternate(a) account.