Compare And Contrast Mill Vs Aquinas

This results in Mill’s claim that a Government’s sole responsibility is to represent the interests of its people: “Those interests, I contend, authorize the subjection of individual spontaneity to external control only in respect to those actions of each which concern the interest of other people” (On Liberty 139). He claims that there are certain situations where it is better to have legal remedies than condemning people morally. In these instances he believes Government to be beneficial to society as it promotes the higher good of freedom. Furthermore, he asserts that laws should be made to protect people from engaging in actions that have been tried since the beginning of time and have proven to be harmful (On Liberty 141).
Mill asserts
This is because Mill’s version of the good life is self-centric whereas Aquinas puts emphasis on believing in a higher being. I do not agree with Aquinas that this being must be God, however I think that it is critical to our success that we believe in something greater than ourselves. For me, that is humanity, that is love, that is the fact that I am just one of billions. This keeps me grounded and allows for me to strive for the improvement of our world. Instead, Mill argues that the good life is focused around maximizing pleasure. This results in a self-centric society since there is no higher being grounding it. A perfect society should not just care about what is received, rather should focus on a higher faith or
I agree with him that being a bystander in many situations is unjust and should be punished by society in some way. A perfect example of this bystander apathy occurred in 2009 in Richmond, California. Ten men and boys gang raped a 15 year old girl while there were approximately twenty bystanders that did nothing. While silence can be interpreted as acceptance under the law, it is very hard to prove and thus hard to convict anybody, resulting in these bystanders having no legal harm. However, here I believe it is society’s responsibility to look down upon these actions. Now, in saying that, I do not think people should take action against these bystanders preventing their pursuit of the good life. Rather, I think as a society, it is important to look at something like this and clearly know that it is wrong. As far as the bystanders go in this situation, they should all be convicted morally by our society and have this action looked down upon.
The point, that separates Aquinas from Mill for me is their views of whether everyone should receive the protection of society. I align with Aquinas as I believe that everyone deserves the protection of society and to be happy. I find Mills view that some people are not ‘fit’ to receive the good life to be absurd. Not only, does it inherently apply a hierarchy that is classist, racist, and sexist, but it diminishes his entire argument for me, as I cannot