Chapter 3:
Here Mill focuses on the importance of Individuality to the person and to society itself. He states through individuality creates character and diversity, which in turn help society to progress. He believes that Europe's attempt to conform the people will make society stagnant until it becomes like the Chinese regime.
Chapter 4:
He believes that a person should be able to pursue his own interests as long as he does not cause any harm to other people and as long has he follows his societal obligations. Society is held responsible to educate it;s youth as well. In response to his most difficult argument, Mill states that the majority should set rules and only make judgements if they were to be content with them if they were the minority.
I am really interested to know what Smith would have said about Mill's emphasis on individuality. He and Mill both see the importance of innovation for the progression of society, but they have different suggestions on how to bring about innovation. For Mill, as Fiorentin wrote, progress comes about when the rights of the individual are put over the majority, creating "character and diversity". For Smith, though, innovation is brought about by division of labor, which suggests standardization and a level of conformity, at least in how tasks are completed. Because of workers' constant repetition of the same task, they have more time and brainpower to think and subsequently invent ways to make their task even easier. It makes me curious to think if Mill and Smith would have seen the logic in each others' arguments, considering how they advocate opposite methods for an identical end.
ReplyDelete