Thread replies: 4
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: Harriet_Mill_from_NPG.jpg (15KB, 220x269px) Image search:
[Google]
15KB, 220x269px
>The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns him, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
Prove her wrong.
>>
not sure. probably a very modern view on social relations. In practical reality most of us live that way anyway. In traditional societies the well being of the individual is understood to be more synonymous with the well veing of everyone. If one amongst us becomes a drug addict and his illness spreads to others, we soon have a catastrophe on our hands. It is the duty of those around him to help him choose a better path, not to be indifferent in the name of freedom and individualism. We ought to care for one another after all.
Do not invoke the words freedom or independence in the face of a spreading disease in your midst
so in the end her view is highly theoretical and very enlightenment
>>
>>2489959
Rights don't exist.
>>
>>2490412
Do people exist?
Do people confer to and defend the rights they define as belonging to one another?
Yes?
Well guess what...
Social constructs exist.
Thread posts: 4
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1