Mill Vs Locke Essay, Research Paper

Dred Scott was the name of an Afro-american slave. He was taken by his maestro, an

officer in the U.S. Army, from the slave province of Missouri to the free province of Illinois and

so to the free district of Wisconsin. He lived on free dirt for a long period of clip.

When the Army ordered his maestro to travel back to Missouri, he took Scott with him back to

that slave province, where shortly after his maestro died. In 1846, Scott was helped by

Abolitionist ( anti-slavery ) attorneies to action for his freedom in tribunal, claiming he should be

free since he had lived on free dirt for a long clip. The instance went all the manner to the

United States Supreme Court. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney,

was a former slave proprietor from Maryland. In March of 1857, Scott lost the determination as

seven out of nine Justices on the Supreme Court declared no slave or descendent of a slave

could be a U.S. citizen, or even had been a U.S. citizen. As a non-citizen, the tribunal stated,

Scott had no rights and could non action in a Federal Court and must stay a slave.

At that clip there were about 4 million slaves in America. The tribunals opinion

affected the position of every enslaved and free Afro-american in the United States. The

governing served to turn back the clock refering the rights of African-Americans, disregarding

the fact that black work forces in five of the original States had been full vote citizens dating

back to the Declaration of Independence in 1776. The Supreme Court besides ruled that

Congress could non halt bondage in the freshly emerging districts. The Court besides declared

that it violated the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution which prohibits Congress from

striping individuals of their belongings without due procedure of jurisprudence. Anti-slavery leaders in the

North cited the controversial Supreme Court Decision as grounds that Southerners wanted

to widen bondage throughout the state and finally govern the state itself. Southerners

approved the Dred Scott determination believing Congress had no right to forbid bondage in the

districts. The topic of this paper is to take a United States jurisprudence, policy, or tribunal opinion

and analyse it from the position of both John Stuart Mill and John Locke.

John Stuart Mill was a celebrated useful philosopher, who had a Deontological

universe position. What that means is you should make things because they are right, and non

concern about the effects. If Mill were to look at the Dred Scott determination, he would

hold it unfair because the Supreme Court did non make the right thing they were more

concerned with the effects of restricting the Southerners rights to hold slaves.

Harmonizing to Mill you are non free to lose your freedom. ? He is no longer free ; but is

thenceforth in a place which has no longer the given in its favor, that would be

afforded by his voluntarily staying in it. The rule of freedom can non necessitate that he

should be free non to be free. It is non freedom to be allowed to estrange his freedom. ? (

Mill pg 536 ) That is informally known as Mill? s Anti-Slavery rule. Mill would besides

argue that the Supreme Court took portion in what he dubs? the dictatorship of the bulk? in

make up one’s minding the Dred Scott instance. ? The Tyranny of the bulk? is when you do something

entirely based on public sentiment. ? the dictatorship of the bulk? is now by and large included

among the immoralities against which society requires to be on its guard. Like other dictatorships, the

dictatorship of the bulk was at first, and is still vulgarly held in apprehension, chiefly as operating

through the Acts of the Apostless of the public authorities.But reflecting individuals perceived that when

society is itself the tyrant-society jointly over the separate persons who compose

it-its agencies of tyrannizing are non restricted to the Acts of the Apostless which it may make by the custodies of its

political functionaries. ? ( Mill pg 517 ) Mill would reason that the Supreme Court made its

governing entirely based on public sentiment instead than a true moral determination. The information

that I have provided therefore far, would implicate, in Mill? s eyes that Dred Scott should be a

free adult male and he was wronged and stripped of his unalienable right to be free by the

Supreme Court of the United States.

On farther analysis of Mill? s statements he provides a disillusioned counterexample

to the information therefore shown. Mill believes that the lone ground why your autonomy may be

limited by the province is to see that you do non harm person else.

? The object of this essay is to asseverate one really simple rule, as entitled to regulate

perfectly the traffics of society with the person in the manner of irresistible impulse and

control, whether the agencies used be physical force in the signifier of legal punishments or the

moral coercion of public sentiment. That rule is, that the exclusive terminal for which world

are warranted, separately or jointly, in interfering with the autonomy of action of any of

their figure, is self-defense. That the lone intent for which power can be truly

exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to forestall injury

to others. His ain good, either physical or moral, is non a sufficient warrant. He can non

truly be compelled to make or hold back because it will be better for him to make so, because

it will do him happier, because, in the sentiments of others, to make so would be wise or

even right. These are good grounds for remonstrating with him, or concluding with him, to

carrying him, or biding him, but non for obliging him or sing him with any evil

in instance he make otherwise. To warrant that, the behavior from which it is desired to discourage him

must be calculated to bring forth immorality to person else. The lone portion of the behavior of

anyone, for which he is conformable to society, is that which concerns others. In the portion

which simply concerns himself, his independency is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over

his ain organic structure and head, the person is sovereign. ? ( Mill pgs 517-18 )

Does Mill? s General Harm Principle use to all people? No it does non use to all

people. It excludes kids, and those that are non white. To Mill they are considered to

be needy of the white adult male. ? & # 8230 ; we may go forth out of consideration those backward provinces of

society in which the race itself may be considered as in its nonage. ? ( Mill pg 518 ) Mill? s

general injury rule does non use to the Dred Scott instance either because so he is a

individual of colour. If so Dred Scott was a white adult male, Mill? s general injury rule

would use to him. Mill goes on to state that if we make battles with another

individual, no affair what the instance, that they must be kept.

? Not merely individuals are non held to battles which violate the rights of 3rd parties, but

it is sometimes considered a sufficient ground for let go ofing them from an battle, that

it is deleterious to themselves. In this and most other civilised states, for illustration, an

battle by which a individual should sell himself, or let himself to be sold, as a slave,

would be void and null ; neither enforced by jurisprudence nor by sentiment. The land for therefore

restricting his power of voluntarily disposing of his ain batch in life, is evident, and is really

clearly seen in this utmost instance. The ground for non interfering unless for the interest of

others, with a individual? s voluntary Acts of the Apostless, is consideration for his autonomy. His voluntary pick

is grounds that what he so chooses is desirable, or at least bearable, to him, and his

good is on the tungsten

hole best provided for by leting him to take his ain agencies of prosecuting

it. But by selling himself for a slave, he abdicates his autonomy ; he foregoes any future usage of

it beyond that individual act. ? ( Mill pg536 )

Mill? s counterexample can be disproved by simple analysis of this citation. He states? by

an battle which a individual should sell himself, or let himself to be sold? ; in Dred

Scott? s instance he did non hold a say in the affair whether he wanted to be sold into bondage

or non. He was merely taken against his will, and forced to give up his unalienable right of

freedom by the United States. I say? against his will? because candidly who would desire to

be sold into bondage? The mentioning of the United States coercing Dred Scott to give up his

unalienable right is true because they ( U.S. authorities ) permitted bondage in their state.

By enslaving person you force them to give up at that place rights.

Now we will look at John Locke? s position on the Dred Scott opinion. John

Locke is frequently referred to as? the philosopher of the revolution. ? This is so because most

of his Hagiographas were written during that clip frame. If Locke were to analyse the Dred

Scott instance and would chiefly reason that the natural right of adult male is to be free from any

power other than the jurisprudence of Nature. ? The natural autonomy of adult male is to be free from any

superior power on Earth, and non to be under the will or legislative authorization of adult male, but to

hold merely the jurisprudence of Nature for his rule. ? ( Locke pg 359 poetry 22 ) Locke implies in the

same poetry that every adult male should be normally treated in a society. ? & # 8230 ; freedom of work forces

under authorities, is, to hold a standing regulation to populate by, common to everyone of that

society & # 8230 ; ? ( Locke pg 359 poetry 22 ) Harmonizing to Locke a adult male can non portion with his

freedom, in making so he parts with his life every bit good. Freedom and the ability to govern 1s life

are mutualist systems.

? For a adult male, non holding the power of his ain life, can non, by compact, or his ain consent,

enslave himself to anyone, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another,

to take away his life, when he pleases. Cipher can give more power than he has himself ;

and he that can non take his ain life, can non give another power over it. Indeed holding, by

his mistake, forfeited his ain life, by some act that deserves decease ; he to whom he has

forfeited it, may ( when he has him in his power ) hold to take it, and do usage of him to

his ain service, and he does him no hurt by it. For, whenever he finds the adversity of

his bondage out weigh the value of his life, it is in his power, by defying the will of his

maestro, . to pull on himself the decease he desires. ? ( Locke pg 359 poetry 23 )

Locke would see Scott? s instance as an unfair one because a adult male? s autonomy ( freedom ) was

taken from him, without his consent. Dred Scott like everyone else is a adult male, in Locke? s

eyes work forces are to be treated as common in society. So why should this adult male ( Dred Scott ) be

denied his freedom? Is it because he is a adult male of colour and he is non white? The reply to

that inquiry in Locke? s eyes is that he is a adult male no affair what, you can non alter that

property. Regardless of colour he is still a adult male in Locke? s eyes and should be granted his

natural right to freedom and his life.

Now we will look at Locke? s counterexample for this statement.

? Maestro and retainer are names every bit old as history, but given to those of far different

status ; for a freeman makes himself a retainer to another, by selling him for a certain

clip, the service he undertakes to make, in exchange for rewards he is to have: and though

this normally puts him into the household of his maestro, and under the ordinary subject

thereof ; yet it gives the maestro but a impermanent power over him, and no greater, than what

is contained in the contract between them. But there is another kind of retainers, which by a

curious name we call slaves, who being prisoners taken in a merely war, are by the right of

nature subjected to the absolute rule and arbitrary power of their Masterss. These work forces

holding, as I say, forfeited their lives, and with it their autonomies, and lost their estates ; and

being in the province of bondage, non capable of any belongings, can non in that province be considered

as any portion of civil society ; the main terminal whereof is the saving of belongings. ?

( Locke pg 372 poetry 85 )

What Locke is stating here is false because Dred Scott did non? Forfeit? his freedom,

instead it was taken from him. He is beliing himself in stating that they ( slaves ) should

non be considered a portion of civil society. Before he was stating that all work forces should be

treated normally in a society, but now he is altering his melody and stating that they should

non be a portion of society. ? Man being born, as has been proved, with a rubric to hone

freedom, and an uncontrolled enjoyment of all rights and privileges of jurisprudence of Nature,

every bit with any other adult male, or figure of work forces in the universe, has by nature a power, non

merely to continue his belongings, that is, his life, autonomy and estate, against the hurts and

efforts of other work forces ; & # 8230 ; ? ( Locke pgs 372-373 poetry 87 ) Locke proves himself incorrect with

this citation because he does non separate between work forces and slaves as he did earlier.

Furthermore a adult male can non be deemed another adult male? s belongings unless they commit to a

contract with that person. In Dred Scott? s instance he did non perpetrate to any kind of

contract, he was taken against his will and purchased by a United States Army Officer.

Therefore Scott is entitled to his freedom harmonizing to Locke? s citation above, eventhough

Locke believes that slaves? forfeit? there freedom. Scott is entitled to his freedom because

he is a adult male who is a rational being.

In measuring both Mill? s and Locke? s perspectives upon the Supreme Court? s

opinion for the Dred Scott instance, a few things can be concluded from both sides. From Mill? s

point of position it is your unalienable right to hold freedom. In his counter illustration though he

provinces that you lose your freedom when you sell yourself into bondage. That statement does

non use nevertheless to Dred Scott? s instance, because he was forced into bondage, and his

unalienable rights were stripped from him. From Locke? s point of position adult male was born free

from any superior power on Earth, he ( adult male ) was merely to hold the jurisprudence of Nature as his

swayer. Locke besides believed that all work forces should be treated normally in a society. In his

counterexample he states that slaves? forfeit? at that place right to freedom and command of at that place

lives. Actually this is incorrect if you look at the Dred Scott instance one time once more you see that he

did non? give up? his freedom instead it was stripped off from him. In making so he lost the

power to regulate his ain life, which Locke deems a necessity in order to populate. By

analysing transitions from both of the respective philosopher? s they make a instance that Dred

Scott was deprived of his unalienable right to freedom and to regulate his ain life. They

besides provide contradictory statements that say that he? forfeited? his right to freedom, and

besides that some things do non use to him because he was a adult male of colour. There statements

are paradoxical because he is so a adult male regardless of his colour, and they both

province that a adult male should non be deprived of his right to freedom. Although both philosophers

hold paradoxical statements about this subject of bondage and freedom, the Supreme

Court made there determination based on there ain positions.

320