Mill and Stephen

1.       Based on Stephen’s thoughts where he defines the decision of what is good and how this ties into law, why does Mill suggest that the evolution of society has changed the thinking to more progressive, but Stephen hints that this definition has been around forever? How come it changed and why Stephen’s thoughts were not always practiced?  Perhaps it is because people did not question the civil liberties they held, but so often they did.  Stephen comments on the rebellion of individuals and the levels that exist; the government appeals to their fears.  However, why was it not there from the beginning and if it was, which I believe it was, why is the evolution suggested?  For example, how power is limited (liberty) only based on Mill’s Harm Principle makes me wonder about how you can account for the idea that self-interest must be aligned with social interest which aligns with economic theory.  Perhaps, rather than like a monocracy in the beginning, the rulers should identify with the people and should share the same interests and will as a nation (which is an aspect of modern society) and this would employ Stephen’s idea that if something is wrong, then it should be limited (to align with social interest).  Also, Mill mentions that an individual’s interest should not interfere with others and introduces the option what violators should be punished by law.  

2.       The idea of limiting freedom is mention in both Stephen and Mill’s writings.  How can individuals measure the limits of each others freedoms?  What gives one government the right/power?  Mill discusses the benefits of living in a protected society while Stephen remarked that the effectiveness of the government depended upon the “degree of which the conditions are recognized or acted upon.”  How have we come to accept this as a society? Stephen believes that the idea is not accepted and that this has divided society.  I agree to the extent of the existence of rebellion in forms such as riots and civil wars.  Mill defines liberty in two ways: “the recognition of inhumanities and establishment of a constitution and checks.”  These should only be limited if causing harm to others.  This is his answer for measuring the limits of others individual freedoms.  He also says that individuals should belong to what they are interested in and society should focus on what society is focused on which separates the idea that social interest should be aligned with self-interest.  I therefore believe that Mill and Stephen differ in the idea of this economic theory and this is what causes the social division.