J.S. Mill vs. Thomas Hobbes

Attribute	J.S. Mill	Thomas Hobbes
Political Philosophy	Liberalism	Absolutism
Role of Government	Minimal intervention, focus on individual liberty	Strong central authority to maintain order
Human Nature	Believed in the inherent goodness of individuals	Believed humans are inherently selfish and competitive
Social Contract	Emphasized the importance of individual rights and freedoms	Argued for a social contract to prevent chaos and anarchy

Background

John Stuart Mill and Thomas Hobbes are two prominent figures in the history of political philosophy. Both thinkers have made significant contributions to the field, but they have very different views on the nature of society and the role of government. Understanding their key attributes can help us appreciate the nuances of their respective philosophies.

Views on Human Nature

Thomas Hobbes, a 17th-century English philosopher, believed that humans are inherently selfish and driven by their own self-interest. He famously described the state of nature as a "war of all against all," where life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." In contrast, J.S. Mill, a 19th-century British philosopher, had a more optimistic view of human nature. He believed that humans are capable of reason and empathy, and that they can work together to create a just society.

Role of Government

For Hobbes, the role of government is to maintain order and prevent chaos. He argued that a strong central authority, such as a monarchy, is necessary to keep individuals in check and prevent them from harming each other. In contrast, Mill believed in the importance of individual liberty and limited government intervention. He argued that the government should only intervene to prevent harm to others, and that individuals should be free to pursue their own interests as long as they do not harm anyone else.

Freedom and Liberty

Both Mill and Hobbes had differing views on freedom and liberty. Mill, a staunch advocate of individual liberty, believed that individuals should have the freedom to think, speak, and act as they please, as long as they do not harm others. He famously argued 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. On the other hand, Hobbes believed that freedom is the absence of external impediments to motion, and that individuals should surrender some of their freedoms to the sovereign in exchange for protection and security.

Utilitarianism vs. Social Contract

One of the key differences between Mill and Hobbes is their ethical frameworks. Mill was a proponent of utilitarianism, a moral theory that emphasizes the greatest happiness for the greatest number. He believed that actions should be judged based on their consequences, and that the goal of society should be to maximize overall happiness. On the other hand, Hobbes' philosophy is based on the social contract theory, which posits that individuals agree to give up some of their freedoms in exchange for protection and security from the sovereign. This contract forms the basis of society and government.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while both J.S. Mill and Thomas Hobbes were influential political philosophers, they had very different views on human nature, the role of government, freedom and liberty, and ethical frameworks. Understanding the nuances of their respective philosophies can help us appreciate the complexity of political thought and the diverse ways in which thinkers have grappled with questions of society and governance throughout history.