Ana içeriğe atla

Mill and Marx on Liberty

 


Socrates asserts that the source of virtue stems from the act of philosophizing. Philosophizing is the act of colliding ideas with each other. Mill takes this idea as the fundamental basis for his meditation on liberty. Mill proposes that liberty of expressing ideas is the prerequisite of achieving what is closest to being truth. Mill, then depicts this process of reaching the truth as a path that begets the liberty of the individual. Karl Marx, on the other hand, portrays liberty as closely tied to working in a vocation in which the individual finds meaning. If Marx, were to peruse Mill’s articulation on what liberates the individual, he would argue that in the formation of an individual as a liberated person, freedom of speech and conscience do not carry much importance, rather self-actualization and self-recognition, which derive from doing meaningful work, blazes the path of liberation of individuality

For an individual to use his conscience, he should be liberated from the chains of society. When an idea is censored, it takes away the individual’s opportunity to use his conscience or judgment. The government is not exempting “from the error”, the government is “fulfilling the duty on” (Mill 21) people on their behalf. This “attempt to exercise control would produce other evils” (Mill 14). Through these ideas, Mill presents his ground for why people should be liberated and what is liberation. Liberation is, therefore, the individual’s ability to practice his conscience without interference, and it is important because it paves the way for improvement. Although I find this to be correct, it misses a core point that could supersede its fundamental pillar. Mill should consider the difference between the function of understanding the truth and the function of accepting truth. The prerequisite of truly understanding something derives from questioning. To illustrate, according to the Hobbesian perspective the motive for not committing a crime could stem from the aversion from apprehension or social alienation. The individual measures his aversion and his appetite towards a decision and acts accordingly. Provided that such aversions and appetites are shaped by outer forces, like the government, it is also possible that they can be altered by other outer forces. To establish a more stable ground for why people shouldn’t commit crimes, individuals should find internal reasons as to why it is more profitable to not commit a crime. Mill’s conceptualization of conscience can have a major play in seeking these reasons. Thereby, by allowing the individual to exercise his conscience and find his rules, the government can construct a more stable ground for ethics. In this way, it becomes evident that the liberation from the outer forces allows the individual to be better not only in judgment but also in ethics, because he is not submitting himself to someone else’s rules, he is obeying his own rule. Marx would reply to this by pointing out that the prerequisite of practicing conscience is being conscious and people can only become truly conscious when they are doing what they find meaningful. To provide a solid ground for ethics, individual should be firstly be liberated in occupying himself with meaningful work. Thereby, when Mill proposes that people should allow others to express their opinions, Marx would agree but he would propose that in communism people can practice their conscience.

According to Marx, the capitalist system gives birth to the alienation of labor. He argues that people start to “distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence”, therefore, “by producing their means of subsistence men are indirectly producing their actual material life” (Marx 164). In other words, Marx implies that the meaning of life is rooted in what people do to survive. Opposite to Mill, Marx weaves the meaning of life to a materialistic end. To further elaborate, Marx, states that division of “material and mental labor” constructs the ground for “consciousness” to “flatter itself” (Marx 174), and by flattering Marx alludes to the idea that “consciousness of existing practice, that is really conceiving something without conceiving something real” (Marx 175). These observations catalyze the concept of “species-being” through which Marx argues, that happiness can only be brought by meaningful work, and people can achieve such happiness when they are species being. In the scenery where Marx is to criticize Mill, he would put great importance on the function of “species being” and he would assert that it is the division of labor, the freedom to do meaningful work that provides self-recognition and actualization, which forms the consciousness, and as consequence liberty of individuals. In opposition to the argument of allowing individuals to form their own ethical ground, Marx would state that it is an overoptimistic argument because it relies on people’s ability to practice their conscience. To elaborate, Marx views the division of labor as the pioneer column of civilization, and in theory, it allows people to occupy themselves with which they are most competent. It is, therefore, not everyone’s duty to question the rules of society simply because they may not be as competent as others. 

In conclusion, Marx would approach Mill’s meditation on liberty with a materialistic lens and would view the liberty to express and think as vital but not fundamental. In other words, When Marx distinguishes animals from people, he considers the division of labor as the disjunctive concept between the two. This implicitly contends that division of labor provided the platform for producing ideas and expressing them. To liberate individuals, the pioneer action should not be allowing them to express their ideas openly because they cannot form their ideas independently if they are not occupying themselves with which they truly want and find meaning. Therefore, to free the individuals, Marx would in opposition to Mill say that communism has to be the system of ruling so that people can take whatever vocation they see fit and be able to form their independent opinions.

Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty, Utilitarianism, and Other Essays.  Oxford University Press, 2015.

Marx, Karl. The Portable. Penguin Books, 1983.

 

Yorumlar

Yorum Gönder

Bu blogdaki popüler yayınlar

Rhetoric in Hobbes' Leviathan

  Hobbes’ Word Play Hobbes argues in favor of a monarch or an oligarch. To be more precise, he is in favor of the idea that multiplicity comes with complexity, harming the integrity of the state. In his opinion, men are mostly power-driven, greedy beings who must surrender themselves to a sovereign power that can spread the terror of punishment. According to Hobbes, this fear of punishment is the only effective motivating force that can keep people from brutally murdering each other. While this Hobbesian idea of the state portrays the sovereign’s subjects almost as though they are slaves, this essay will argue that Hobbes is not fundamentally against liberty and allows it within the constraints of laws. Hobbes's description of liberty suggests that only external impediments are against freedom. He states that liberty is “the absence of external impediments” (189) and, although these impediments may take away man’s power to do what he would, they do not prevent men from using th...
1 yorum
Devamı

Rousseau on Legitimacy of State

Hobbes'dan sonra Rousseau okumayı Proust'tan sonra Daphnes ve Chloe okumaya benzetiyorum. Proust aşkı öyle yapay, çıkarcı ve öyle çirkin yansıtıyor ki, ondan sonra okuduğun her romana ister istemez Proust'un realist bakış açısından bakıyorsun. Belki de realizm sevdamı bırakmalıyımdır. Hobbes'un determinist bakış açısı da birçok argümanını epey ikna edici kılıyor. Bazen bu bakış açısından kaçmak istiyor insan. Hobbes kimmiş lan, ben ölümlü tanrıya irademi falan teslim edemem, gayet özgürüm demek istiyor. Yine de gel gör ki Hobbes haklı. Nasıl, Kant ödev ahlakında nasıl ki herkes davranışlarının topluma yansıdığını varsayarak hareket etmeli diyorsa, Hobbes da yapılmak istemediğini yapma diyor. Buna karşı çıkmak da biraz zor. Rousseau abi Social Contract'ında denese de Emile kitabındaki ikna ediciliğini devam ettiremiyor gibi hissediyorum. Birazdan okuyacak olduğun yazıda da oldukça soyut fikirler göreceksin ve yer yer kendine e ama niye diye soracaksın. Bil ki ben de ...
Yorum Gönder
Devamı

Hobbes’ Paradox

Hobbes’ Paradox Resolved According to Hobbes, people are born with passions that ultimately lead them into a never-ending war. They require artificial power to stop killing each other. Unless such a power is erected, Hobbes suggests, leaving the state of nature is impossible since people are not inclined to cooperate and trust each other. The core reason why it is impossible to leave the state of nature is because of the innate passions people have that drive them to be constantly in conflict. Hobbes states that in the condition of nature, “any reasonable suspicion” renders any covenant or promise invalid since “bonds of words are too weak to bridle men’s ambition, avarice, anger, and other passions…” (196). Here, Hobbes highlights the importance of punishments, suggesting that without the motivating fear of punishments, covenants are practically invalid. It is also important to understand what Hobbes means by the condition of nature. He argues that because men are born equal, they...
Yorum Gönder
Devamı