The purpose of this essay is, in a political philosophy perspective, to offer an illumination of John Stuart Mill¡¦s thoughts on modernity. In this essay, firstly, in the first chapter, I will try to elaborate the reason why I write this essay and take a perspective of history and political philosophy as my analytic viewpoint. Moreover, I also briefly introduce Mill¡¦s writings and the frameworks of this essay. In the second chapter, I describe the events, movements, and thoughts that gradually shape the modernity. From the standpoints of Weber, Hume and Romanticism, I also refer to one of the most important characteristics of modernity in political philosophy: value pluralism. In Mill¡¦s thoughts, how to response to the problem derived from value pluralism is my most important discourse. In the following chapter, I offer an exposition to detail Mill¡¦s discourses on modernity, focusing on his utilitarianism and liberalism. I mainly discuss how Mill¡¦s principles of utility and liberty response to the problem derived from value pluralism. I also discuss two contemporary thinkers¡¦ thoughts to find Mill¡¦s discourses on modernity, namely John Rawls and John Gray. In the fourth chapter, I assess and review the criticisms on Mill¡¦s discourses on modernity. In the conclusion chapter, I briefly go through the major viewpoints of this essay.

Title from PDF of title page. / Document formatted into pages; contains 58 pages / Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references. / Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format. / ABSTRACT: In this thesis I examine three models of justification for the epistemic authority of the principle of contradiction. Aristotle has deemed the principle "that the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect" the most certain and most prior of all principles, both in the order of nature and in the order of knowledge, and as such it is indemonstrable. The principle of contradiction is involved in any act of rational discourse, and to deny it would be to reduce ourselves to a vegetative state, being incapable of uttering anything with meaning. The way we reach the principle of contradiction is by intuitive grasping (epagoge) from the experience of the particulars, by recognizing the universals in the particulars encountered, and it is different from simple induction, which, in Mill's view, is the process through which we construct a general statement on the basis of a limited sample of observed particulars. / ABSTRACT: Hence, the principle of contradiction, being a mere generalization from experience, through induction, loses its certainty and necessity. Even though it has a high degree of confirmation from experience, it is in principle possible to come across a counter-example which would refute it. Mill's account opens the path to the modern view of the principle of contradiction. In Principia Mathematica, Russell and Whitehead contend that the principle of contradiction is still a tautology, always true, but it is derived from other propositions, set forth as axioms. Its formulation, " (p & p)" is quite different from Aristotle's, and this is why we are faced with the bizarre situation of being able to derive the law of contradiction in a formal system which could not have been built without the very principle of which the law is an expression of. / ABSTRACT: This is perhaps because the principle of contradiction, as a principle, has a much larger range of application and is consequently more fundamental than what we call today the law of contradiction, with its formal function. / System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader. / Mode of access: World Wide Web.

This paper explains the relationship and different arguments concerning freedom of speech. It uses Swedish newspaper columns, such as editorial pages, as its main source. The paper is mainly based upon the work of John Stuart Mill and his book On Freedom and Thomas Hobbes work Leviathan. The main focus is to see if there’s any connection between the Swedish newspapers and the theories which in itself is based upon the two works. The method that was used throughout this thesis was a content analysis which means that all of the newspaper articles and columns were analyzed and put into three different categories with category number one being based upon John Stuart Mill and his ideas, and number three being based upon Thomas Hobbes. Number two worked as a middle way and combined both of the theories. In those separate categories they were read and analyzed after arguments. Arguments that were often recurring were the main focus and were also the ones that were used for the final conclusion. The conclusion was based on the articles and the output was that the majority of the articles actually went on the same line as John Stuart Mill and that a few would like to see some kind of restriction on freedom of speech.

This thesis aims to provide the appropriate historical context for interpreting John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism. The central question considered here concerns two views of Mill's intentions for Utilitarianism, and whether the work should be read as Mill arguing for his own version of utilitarianism, or as an ecumenical document expressing and defending the views of many utilitarians. The first view, labeled the orthodox view, as defended by Roger Crisp, is probably the most commonly held view as to how to interpret the document. The second view, labeled the revisionist view, is defended by Daniel Jacobson in a recent article. By examining Mill's place in the history of utilitarianism, his journals, correspondence, and other writings leading up to and after the publication of Utilitarianism, this thesis argues in support of the revisionist position. Furthermore, it is argued that certain portions of the book deserve special consideration apart from other chapters, and this is taken to have implications for the future of research in Mill?s thought. This thesis has four chapters including the first introductory chapter, which outlines the motivations guiding the orthodox and revisionist views. The second chapter provides a general exposition of Utilitarianism, as well as an outline of the primary evidence supporting the orthodox and revisionist positions. The third chapter is a defense of the revisionist position, and it highlights the specific biographical context in which Utilitarianism was composed, as well as evidence from Mill's writings, correspondence, and journals suggesting that he saw the need to write a general defense of the principle of utility and elaborate his theory of justice. This chapter also includes a historiographical analysis of Mill's biographers, which suggests that Utilitarianism is not viewed by Mill's biographers as being especially central to his considered views on utilitarianism. Finally, the chapter includes a section on the early reception and criticisms offered against Utilitarianism, which partly explains why the book has come to be interpreted as it has. The final chapter reviews the evidence for the revisionist position and explains the implications for Mill scholarship in light of the findings of this study.

En el primer capítol - 1. El liberalisme peculiar de John Stuart Mill - es fa un recorregut per les interpretacions més significatives sobre l'obra de Mill subratllant la consternació i perplexitat que provoca en les files del liberalisme les suposades desviacions d'aquest pensador.El segon capítol - 2. Reforma i revolució: el paper de la història - està dedicat a l'estudi de la concepció milleana de la història a partir dels estereotips i prejudicis dels seus compatriotes contemporanis. En el capítol es segueix les mostres d'interès de Mill respecte les revolucions a França (XVIII i XIX). Aquestes demostracions es comparen amb les reaccions que les mateixes susciten entre els polítics i intel·lectuals anglesos.En el tercer capítol -3. Mill: Politeia vs democràcia- s'argumenta la manera com Mill atribueix un paper fonamental a l'interès general en una línia totalment diferent a l'argumentada pels denominats, respectivament, liberalisme polític i liberalisme lliurecanvista (econòmic o de mercat). Mill es situa amb el seu "interès general" en l'àmbit de la tradició moderna republicana iniciada amb les repúbliques renaixentistes italianes, i s'argumentarà que actualitzades a les condicions sociològiques d'una societat industrial. També en aquest capítol, es dóna a conèixer la teoria de la democràcia de Mill anunciant els perills de la "falsa" democràcia representativa basada en el sufragi universal per elecció de majories numèriques com a fórmula per garantir la identificació d'interessos entre els ciutadans i els governants. Aquest apartat tracta, també, dels perills que poden resultar d'una cultura política negativa, la qual prepara l'escenari per a una confrontació ideologista basada en interessos de classe.En el quart capítol - 4. La llibertat - es busca mostrar les diferencies de Mill respecte els tòpics del liberalisme ideològic emergent en el XIX. S'argumentarà que Mill defensa una teoria de la llibertat en la que la defensa d'igualtat n'és una part fonamental. La vinculació d'aquests dos valors presentats pel liberalisme jeràrquicament, primer la llibertat i després la igualtat, és revisada per Mill a partir de la seva teoria de la diversitat dels individus els quals es construeixen sempre socialment. La llibertat serà entesa a la manera republicana com procés d'alliberament de les constriccions i dominacions exercides des de la pròpia societat.En el cinquè capítol - 5. Política i autoritat - es du l'argumentació de la interpretació republicana de Mill a l'àmbit de la noció d'autoritat. Es traça aquí el vincle entre la concepció de Maquivel de la virtut cívica que exerceix el lideratge patriòtic envers a una societat cohesionada i participativa amb la de Mill quan reclama la necessitat del lideratge d'una classe del coneixement, cívica, posant èmfasi en la convicció intel·lectual compartida abans mencionada. Aquest capítol serveix per tancar el recorregut iniciat amb la defensa de Mill de la necessitat d'una nova cultura política i el paper protagonista en les circumstàncies dictades per l'època moderna per a un grup social històric dirigent - el "príncep" o la classe del coneixement segons Mill. També, en aquest capítol, s'analitza el concepte de poder i el d'autoritat en Mill ubicant-lo dins de la tradició republicana.Finalment, en el darrer capítol, - 6. Conclusions -, primer, es defensa la confirmació de les hipòtesis marcades en els objectius generals i construïdes capítol a capítol; segon, es contextualitza el "fracàs" milleà en els esdeveniments polítics històrics i debats ideològics del darrer segle en el marc de la hipòtesi general segons la qual segueix pendent encara avui, a) la progressió d'una nova cultura política de caràcter cívic i constitucionalista i, b) s'afirma la consolidació en termes culturals d'allò que Mill anunciava com la gran amenaça per a la democràcia que és "l'opinió pública". / The departing point of this thesis is to find out why Mill arouses so many suspicions and is subject to so many nuances, not only among traditional socialist thinkers and conservatives in all its variants, but especially among those who come from the liberal currents. The response will be to work on the assumption that Mill was not the representative of the renewal of liberalism in the nineteenth century as it has often been said but a continuator of the republican thought and one of the last political thinkers before the idealogisation of the social and political thought of modernity. In this thesis we will prove that only from this supposition we can re-interpret Mill's democratic theory. From this perspective, it has largely been discussed whether Mill was an elitist, a democratic participacionist, a democrat without convictions, an authoritarian or simply incoherent. Defending this thesis we will state that this discussion today has no more sense. Coherent thinker in the essential aspects of his political theory, it is argued that it is not possible to disassociate his notion of democracy from the historical facts (from the revolution, from the reforms and the social sciences they study) and the theory of culture inherent to his philosophy. Mill had a qualitative and not a quantitative conception of politics. Politics was, for Mill, "politeia" and not "leviathan". And therefore the name of republic thinker acquires in this case a clear democratic ingredient, more than that of a liberal. For Mill the view is that democracy has more to do with the general interest, and from this general interest, with freedom. In this text, we will argue that for Mill no human society can afford to dispense, in whatever degree, of the reflection on the power and realization of it, what we mean by "the exercise of authority", and we will provide reasons to bring out the differences between, on the one hand, the liberal conception of power and authority and, on the other, the concept Mill has of them.

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / A vida impõe decisões às pessoas o tempo todo, e as pessoas as tomam de acordo com seus valores considerando as particularidades de cada situação. Valo-res são quaisquer aspectos da decisão que sejam considerados desejáveis, indese-jáveis, relevantes e importantes como: ser preferido, desejável, agradável, promis-sor, seguro, emocionante, justo, bom, correto, fácil, incerto, etc. Com base nestes valores, entendemos que o fundamento último do utilitarismo é o princípio da maximização da felicidade. Segundo esta concepção, uma ação é considerada correta, logo válida, se ela promover maior felicidade dos implicados. A felicidade é entendida como o alcance do prazer e do bem-estar. Nesta corrente encontramos uma perspectiva eudamonista e hedonista, uma vez que tem em vista como objectivo final a felicidade que consiste no prazer. Qualquer utilitarista tem de se importar, sobretudo com a promoção da felicidade geral. A partir de Mill, a moralidade passa a ser realização de cada ser humano neste mundo, aqui e agora. O princípio de utilidade exige que cada um de nós faça o que for necessário e estiver ao seu alcançe para promover a felicidade e evitar a dor. Ao analisarmos as consequências previsíveis de uma ação, temos que considerar não apenas a quantidade, mas a qualidade de prazer que dela possa resultar. Para os utilitaristas o que importa são as consequências das ações, elas devem visar ao prazer, e somente isso permite avaliar se uma ação é correta ou não, logo é uma perspectiva consequencialista. O que importa são as consequências e não os motivos das nossas ações, desde que isso promova a felicidade ao maior número de pessoas possível. Mas, o ato só é permissível se, e apenas se, maximiza imparcialmente o bem. A filosofia Utilitarista costuma dividir seus leitores. É exaltada por alguns, que defendem o mérito de ser um ponto de vista que oferece melhores subsídios para melhor lidarmos com as questões éticas que realmente importam e estão associadas às condições que tornam possível uma vida feliz e se possível, isenta de sofrimentos. Por outro lado, há aqueles que apontam para o perigo de uma filosofia que estima a qualidade moral de ações levando em consideração apenas as suas consequências. Esta corrente não é uma escola filosófica, uma vez que se trata de uma filosofia que constantemente se reinventa e se adapta a fim de ir sempre ao encontro de novos desafios que uma ética não pode deixar de enfrentar. / Life requires decisions to people all the time and people take them according to their values, considering the particularities of each situation. Values are any aspects of the decision which are considered desirable, undesirable, relevant and important, as being preferred, desirable, pleasant, promising, safe, exciting, fair, good, correct, easy, uncertain, etc. Based on these values, we understand that the ultimate foundation of utilitarianism is the principle of utility. According to this concept, an action is considered correct, thus, valid, if it promotes greater happiness of those involved. Happiness, in turn, is understood as the achievement of pleasure and welfare. In this current we find a eudemonistic and hedonistic perspective, as it has as the ultimate goal happiness consisting in pleasure. Any utilitarian has to care mostly with the promotion of general happiness. From Mill, morality becomes the achievement of every human being in this world, here and now. The principle of utility requires that each one of us do whatever is necessary, and within our rich, to promote happiness and avoid pain. By analyzing the predictable consequences of an action, we must consider not only the quantity, but the quality of pleasure resulting from them. To utilitarians what really matters are the consequences of actions, as they should aim pleasure. Only this allows us to assess whether an action is right or not, leading to the idea of a consequentialist perspective. What matters are the consequences and not the reasons of our actions, as long as it promotes happiness to as many people as possible. However, the act is permissible only if, and only if, it impartially maximizes the good. The Utilitarian philosophy usually divides its readers. It is extolled by some, who defend the merit of its being a viewpoint that offers better benefits, so that important ethical issues the ones associated with conditions that can make life happier and free from suffering can be more easily dealt with. On the other hand, there are those that points to the danger of a philosophy that estimates the moral quality of actions, taking into account only its consequences. This current is not a philosophical school, since it is a philosophy that constantly reinvents itself and adapts, so that it can always meet new challenges that ethics cannot avoid facing.

Submitted by Automa??o e Estat?stica (sst@bczm.ufrn.br) on 2016-05-03T23:56:28Z No. of bitstreams: 1 RafaelLucasDeLima_TESE.pdf: 1734239 bytes, checksum: 18bd8393a7c921f74016417817f3e727 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Arlan Eloi Leite Silva (eloihistoriador@yahoo.com.br) on 2016-05-05T23:20:34Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 RafaelLucasDeLima_TESE.pdf: 1734239 bytes, checksum: 18bd8393a7c921f74016417817f3e727 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-05-05T23:20:34Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 RafaelLucasDeLima_TESE.pdf: 1734239 bytes, checksum: 18bd8393a7c921f74016417817f3e727 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-04-17 / O desenvolvimento do indiv?duo humano foi objeto de investiga??o de muitos pensadores ao longo da hist?ria da filosofia. Os sentidos que esse desenvolvimento adquiriu, no entanto, foram muito variados, abrangendo aspectos morais, pol?ticos, epistemol?gicos, est?ticos, econ?micos, e mesmo religiosos. O objetivo desta tese ? investigar o sentido que esse desenvolvimento adquiriu para o fil?sofo utilitarista John Stuart Mill, partindo, para isso, de sua concep??o de individualidade. / The development of a human individual was a matter of investigation for many thinkers through the history of philosophy. The meanings that this development has taken were, nevertheless, very diversified, involving moral, political, epistemological, aesthetical and even religious aspects. The main agents in this process of development of human individuality are, on the one hand, each individual, who has to strive to improve himself the most, creating and resorting to the means available to that; on the other hand, the fomentalist State also have to take his part in this process, given that such a State has a direct interest in the development of his own citizens; it has to act in such a way that it can foment new and enhance the old existing means that can be used to accomplish the task of developing the human individuality. The goal of this thesis is to investigate the meaning that such development has acquired for the utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill, from his conception of individuality.

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / A vida impõe decisões às pessoas o tempo todo, e as pessoas as tomam de acordo com seus valores considerando as particularidades de cada situação. Valo-res são quaisquer aspectos da decisão que sejam considerados desejáveis, indese-jáveis, relevantes e importantes como: ser preferido, desejável, agradável, promis-sor, seguro, emocionante, justo, bom, correto, fácil, incerto, etc. Com base nestes valores, entendemos que o fundamento último do utilitarismo é o princípio da maximização da felicidade. Segundo esta concepção, uma ação é considerada correta, logo válida, se ela promover maior felicidade dos implicados. A felicidade é entendida como o alcance do prazer e do bem-estar. Nesta corrente encontramos uma perspectiva eudamonista e hedonista, uma vez que tem em vista como objectivo final a felicidade que consiste no prazer. Qualquer utilitarista tem de se importar, sobretudo com a promoção da felicidade geral. A partir de Mill, a moralidade passa a ser realização de cada ser humano neste mundo, aqui e agora. O princípio de utilidade exige que cada um de nós faça o que for necessário e estiver ao seu alcançe para promover a felicidade e evitar a dor. Ao analisarmos as consequências previsíveis de uma ação, temos que considerar não apenas a quantidade, mas a qualidade de prazer que dela possa resultar. Para os utilitaristas o que importa são as consequências das ações, elas devem visar ao prazer, e somente isso permite avaliar se uma ação é correta ou não, logo é uma perspectiva consequencialista. O que importa são as consequências e não os motivos das nossas ações, desde que isso promova a felicidade ao maior número de pessoas possível. Mas, o ato só é permissível se, e apenas se, maximiza imparcialmente o bem. A filosofia Utilitarista costuma dividir seus leitores. É exaltada por alguns, que defendem o mérito de ser um ponto de vista que oferece melhores subsídios para melhor lidarmos com as questões éticas que realmente importam e estão associadas às condições que tornam possível uma vida feliz e se possível, isenta de sofrimentos. Por outro lado, há aqueles que apontam para o perigo de uma filosofia que estima a qualidade moral de ações levando em consideração apenas as suas consequências. Esta corrente não é uma escola filosófica, uma vez que se trata de uma filosofia que constantemente se reinventa e se adapta a fim de ir sempre ao encontro de novos desafios que uma ética não pode deixar de enfrentar. / Life requires decisions to people all the time and people take them according to their values, considering the particularities of each situation. Values are any aspects of the decision which are considered desirable, undesirable, relevant and important, as being preferred, desirable, pleasant, promising, safe, exciting, fair, good, correct, easy, uncertain, etc. Based on these values, we understand that the ultimate foundation of utilitarianism is the principle of utility. According to this concept, an action is considered correct, thus, valid, if it promotes greater happiness of those involved. Happiness, in turn, is understood as the achievement of pleasure and welfare. In this current we find a eudemonistic and hedonistic perspective, as it has as the ultimate goal happiness consisting in pleasure. Any utilitarian has to care mostly with the promotion of general happiness. From Mill, morality becomes the achievement of every human being in this world, here and now. The principle of utility requires that each one of us do whatever is necessary, and within our rich, to promote happiness and avoid pain. By analyzing the predictable consequences of an action, we must consider not only the quantity, but the quality of pleasure resulting from them. To utilitarians what really matters are the consequences of actions, as they should aim pleasure. Only this allows us to assess whether an action is right or not, leading to the idea of a consequentialist perspective. What matters are the consequences and not the reasons of our actions, as long as it promotes happiness to as many people as possible. However, the act is permissible only if, and only if, it impartially maximizes the good. The Utilitarian philosophy usually divides its readers. It is extolled by some, who defend the merit of its being a viewpoint that offers better benefits, so that important ethical issues the ones associated with conditions that can make life happier and free from suffering can be more easily dealt with. On the other hand, there are those that points to the danger of a philosophy that estimates the moral quality of actions, taking into account only its consequences. This current is not a philosophical school, since it is a philosophy that constantly reinvents itself and adapts, so that it can always meet new challenges that ethics cannot avoid facing.

This paper is a case study on Bradley E. Manning, famous for leaking classified intelligence to media, or in the charge sheet’s words: “knowingly give intelligence to the enemy, through indirect means.” My opinion is that this sort of dilemma is a question of values, how you view the world and, most important of all, human rights and the philosophy of rights. Therefore I decided to sort out the arguments regarding the issue of freedom of speech versus the state’s need for protection. To do this I performed a pro et contra analysis from John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty and Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, this building my theory on which I lean my other work upon. Furthermore, I performed a case study on Manning where I compared the charges and the defense with the arguments of Mill and Hobbes. Ergo: I applied my theory on an existing conflict between freedom of speech and the state’s need for protection to see which arguments that are used in the charge against Manning and if one could derive this from the argumentation analysis consistent of Mill and Hobbes.   Words: 11474

As one of the most well-known figures of the nineteenth century, John Stuart Mill was depicted extensively in journalism, pictures, life-writing and fiction. This thesis draws on a selection from these diverse and underexplored sources to offer a new perspective on Mill’s presence in Victorian cultural and emotional life. It shows how Mill figured in fierce debates about science and culture in the mid- to late-nineteenth century, and how ideas of Mill’s ‘femininity’ were used to both attack and commend him philosophically, politically and personally. Mill’s ‘Saint of Rationalism’ label continues to belie the extent to which he was associated with ideas of passion, sensitivity, tenderness, feeling, and emotion in the nineteenth century. This project explores how such terms were invoked in relation to Mill as a philosopher and politician, but also how they related to readers’ encounters with his works. More than any previous study, this thesis pays close attention to the interaction between verbal and visual depictions, and considers official images and caricatures of Mill alongside written accounts. Though much scholarship emphasises that Mill’s reputation went into decline after his death in 1873 (to be recovered in the late twentieth century), this thesis demonstrates the vitality and diversity of literary engagements with Mill in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. It offers case studies of three authors – Thomas Hardy, Mona Caird and Olive Schreiner – and reads both the form and content of their fiction as involved in recognisably Millian experiments in living. Exploring the Millian concepts that figure in novels by Hardy, Caird and Schreiner not only expands the sense of the philosophical context to their writings, but underscores the continued relevance of Mill to discussions of self-development and education, free discussion and intellectual independence. Finally, this thesis suggests ways in which work on representations of Mill could be developed to gain further insight into the cultural history of the philosopher, into interactions between philosophy and literature, and into the nineteenth-century definitions of liberal culture that inform twenty-first century debates.