Friedrich Nietzsche had his own ideas of right and wrong because he believed that the belief in God is incorrect. Therefore, he proposed what should be considered right and wrong. He suggested disregarding God to the point of assuming that God is dead, which would center the ideas of right and wrong around himself or his concepts only. This declaration means that his ideas must be the basis of right and wrong, with all other concepts being considered incorrect. Nietzsche believed that we should consider God as dead so we can be free to implement our own ideas. “It is the ending of our enslavement to idols of the absolute” (Dolson, 2008). As I understand it, believing in God also means accepting an afterlife, which Nietzsche rejected.
He believes that a person who is striving to be good does so with the intention of going to heaven, making it the purpose of their existence. However, this mindset turns them into a slave as they are no longer free to think about anything else other than the goodness defined by religious figures. Nietzsche argues that this is a lie and instead advocates for individuals to remain faithful to the earth” and achieve freedom through self-mastery.
I think Nietzsche can be considered an enemy of the church, but not to intellectuals or those with an open mind who have the ability to understand him. Personally, I do not view him as a bad man because he has the courage to express his thoughts, which makes him an admirable writer. However, for those who blindly follow his writings without critical thinking, their perspective may differ.
The slave mentality develops an ethics that extols altruistic or selfless acts and commends the meekness of spirit.” (Mill, 2002). This means that the opposite of this is the ‘master’, a person who, in my opinion, is self-centered and self-righteous because their perception of what is good depends on the situation. If they are wealthy, they tend to be abusive and cruel since their attitudes and thinking determine what is good or bad. They only care about what benefits them without considering how it will affect others. However, Nietzsche’s concepts also suggest that a person can be fair in their judgment and decisions.
Mill insists that logic is both an art and a science, with the purpose of ascertaining truth. Many misunderstandings about logic stem from a lack of understanding its true function. Logic is often viewed skeptically by the general public, who see it as a means of proving falsehoods. Some even take pride in being illogical. However, this misconception arises from those who view logic as simply deducing from supposed universal maxims.
In 1854, while planning On Liberty,” Mill confided in his long-standing friend George Grote that he was considering writing an essay to highlight the things society prohibited that it should not and the things it left uncontrolled that it should regulate. This statement emphasized control as much as liberty, which is precisely how Grote interpreted it. He expressed his concerns to another friend, Alexander Bain, stating, “It’s easy for John Mill to advocate for removing social restrictions, but I’m extremely apprehensive about imposing new ones.”
What Mill told Grote indicates that he intended On Liberty” to be a defense of both liberty and control, as well as an explanation of the circumstances that call for one or the other. Knowing about this intention, announced in the mid-1850s, makes it necessary for us to examine the text of “On Liberty,” published in 1859, to determine if it reflects what the author intended when he first planned it. This is called for all the more by the inclusion in “On Liberty” of a passage similar to his explanation of purpose in conversation with Grote: ‘liberty is often granted where it should be withheld, as well as withheld where it should be granted’.
The report of what Mill told Grote was published in 1882 in the first biography of Mill, written by his friend Alexander Bain. However, despite this publication, Mill’s statement regarding his plan for On Liberty is rarely discussed in the vast array of articles and books offering interpretations of On Liberty. Furthermore, the possibility that Mill advocated substantial controls as well as liberty, suggested by his conversation with Grote, is never seriously considered.
Instead, most commentators have regarded Mill as wishing to expand individual freedom to the greatest possible extent while reluctantly providing minimal constraints on each individual to prevent harm to others. The widely shared view is that Mill wanted ‘a maximum degree of non-interference compatible with the minimum demands of social life,’ making him one of the ‘fathers of liberalism.’
Isaiah Berlin is one prominent spokesman for this view and tells us that ‘the definition of negative liberty as the ability to do as one wishes … is, in effect, the definition adopted by Mill.’
There is broad agreement that Mill sought expansive liberty and minimal restraint. The vast majority of commentators hold that, while he places some limits on individual liberty, these limits fall very short of anything resembling control. For Mill, interference, denial of choice, coercion, and encroachments on individuality are abhorrent. In the words of one of the most prominent recent interpreters of Mill: If anyone has given classic expression to the case for liberty it is surely Mill.” Such is the dominant view. By common consent, he emerges as the most eminent advocate of individual freedom.
While there is a general agreement on this topic, it is true that there are differences in interpretation. Some argue that Mill’s position is incoherent because he defended liberty as having intrinsic value while also claiming to ground his argument on utilitarianism. Others deny any contradiction.
He also had a future organic state of society in mind when he made allusions to a time when there would be reduced need for liberty of speech and discussion. It is useful,” he said, “that while mankind is imperfect, there should be different opinions.” The implication being that once perfection is achieved, diversity – including the liberty that accompanies it – will be less useful. The same implication can be drawn from the statement, “In an imperfect state of the human mind, the interests of truth require a diversity of opinions.” The assumption that there can and will be a future state with less diversity and less liberty is even more clearly evident in a passage that forecasts a “consolidation of opinion.”
While Mill asserts the survival of freedom, it is worth noting the parallels between his references. The first parallel is between his reference to ‘general unanimity of sentiment’ and the second condition for stable political society, which includes provision for ‘some fixed point’ that is ‘in the common estimation placed beyond discussion.’ The second parallel is between the first condition, which involves training humans to subordinating their personal impulses and aims to what are considered society’s ends, and what he says here about ‘firm convictions … deeply engraven on feelings by early education.’ One wonders how experiments in living and an expansive individuality would thrive in such conditions.
It is evident that Mill was willing to accept less liberty in a society with a religion of humanity than in a society in transition. However, this does not mean that On Liberty, which strongly advocates for free expression of speech and conduct, was incompatible with his moral reform project, including his advocacy for a religion of humanity. Although On Liberty emphasizes the permanent value of liberty and its importance in an organic state of society, it also promotes the freedom necessary during transitional periods. Chapters one to three are the most prominent parts of the book; they not only celebrate liberty but also justify liberties that would hasten the demise of obsolete beliefs and customs within existing society.
This was not the entirety of Mill’s argument. In the last two chapters, he provides justifications for intrusions and constraints on selfish individuals with miserable individuality. These individuals prevented the emergence of a new organic state of society, and their conduct might have to be restrained even after the establishment of the religion of humanity. One part of the book emphasized liberty, while the other provided for control without strong emphasis.
This is how John Stuart Mill regarded it. When he planned his book, he told Grote that he was considering an essay to point out what things society forbade that it ought not and what things it left alone that it ought to control (Gregory, 2002). This is why he could say that Comte, representing authority and control, had half the truth while the liberal or revolutionary school advocating liberty had the other half. In On Liberty, Mill held that in the great practical concerns of life, achieving the reconciling and combining of opposites,” such as sociality with individuality and discipline with liberty was important (96).
John Stuart Mill was highly conscious of the importance of combining liberty with sociality, discipline, cohesion, and authority. Therefore, he became frustrated when accused of being indifferent to the significance of authority. After reading articles by James Fitzjames Stephen that anticipated Liberty Equality Fraternity – a book where Stephen defended authority against what he assumed was Mill’s position – Mill reacted by saying that Stephen ‘does not know what he is arguing against.’
Resources
- Dolson, Grace Neal. (2007). The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche.” Publisher: Kessinger Publishing.
- Mill, John S. (2002). “The Basic Writings of John Stuart Mill: On Liberty, The Subjection of Women and Utilitarianism.” Publisher: Modern Library.
- Gregory, Wanda. (2002). “World Ethics.” Publisher: Wadsworth Publishing.
