Introduction
Moral philosophy is predicated on the notion of fulfilling individuals’ rights and freedoms without interfering with others. In our societies, governments protect and promote civility, ensuring a certain individual or group does not impede others’ rights to pursue their happiness. It is important to discern the relevance of this ideology using Mill and Hobbesian theories. These philosophers indicated ways that society should function and how people should behave to maximize happiness and obey the law. The following is an illustration of the tenets of both individuals and the proper philosophy to adopt to remain fair and impartial.
The just way to resolve the issue of placing a statue at the park should be dealt with by the City Council. They agreed for the small religious group to erect one and opened the discussion about other groups placing theirs. While the first group discerns its erection to celebrate its doctrines, the others are equally justified to place their statues. However, this would lead to clutter, impeding the park’s function and limiting the freedoms of individuals who do not follow any of these religions. In this way, it would be prudent to ban all statutes as each group would be dealt with equally. The initial small religion’s permission would result in clutter at the park as others would undeniably feel their rights were denied if they were limited from putting up statues. Furthermore, it is unfair to allow only well-established religions or those with large followings to erect statues while denying their smaller counterparts this opportunity. The best course of action is to ban all statues. The City Council would consider everyone’s freedoms before making this decision.
Mills’ Perspective
It is crucial to mirror our argument based on John Stuart Mill’s theory on liberty, where the philosopher deems utilitarianism the best moral theory. It follows that an action that leads to happiness is right while those that cause suffering are wrong. In this instance, giving rights to a particular group would cause harm as the rest would feel discriminated against and underrepresented. Despite one religious group starting those processes and gaining permission, it is prudent to consider the needs of the many as opposed to the few. The religious groups would remain equal, resulting in less suffering than unilaterally siding with one group such as the well-established religions.
It is also important to consider that allowing individuals to vote would lead to an all-controlling group that would dominate the others. In such an instance, large groups would overwhelmingly defeat smaller ones and have the right to erect their statues while their counterparts were denied the opportunity. This concept is referred to as the ‘Tyranny of the majority (Libertarianism, 2020). While the majority would vote for large groups to put up the statues, this vote would not be fair to the others and inaccurately represent the democratic process.
Mills posits an erroneous argument involving representation by claiming that a group of individuals may choose a representative sharing their ideals to vote on their behalf. In this instance, the vote may be skewed depending on whether there are more large religions than smaller ones or vice versa. The majority would gain the upper hand over their counterparts and decide that does not fairly represent the people.
Individuals in every religion are likely to suppress the truth as it seems harmful to them. Mills is correct in making this assumption, an issue that would prompt a group to consider the truth as harmful. They have freedom of speech and can communicate in a way they deem positive (EU vs DiSiNFO, 2021). For instance, large religions may argue they represent many people and, thus, should have greater authority than smaller religions. However, it is important to consider that whether large or small, all these groups should be fairly represented to avoid harming any citizen. Maximum happiness should be derived from this scenario, with every member thought of in the final deliberation. It is also prudent to state that individuals who do not belong to any religion are not represented in this scenario and should have a voice as the park belongs to every community member. As such, the City Council should avoid harming any citizen and ban statues from the park, dealing fairly with all groups involved in the issue.
Hobbes’ Assertions
The City Council has immense power under Hobbes’ philosophy and should not allow any religion to erect a statue. It should ban every statute, an action that the parties should accept willingly without questioning as it is predicated on authority. However, the City Council does not have an obligation to consider the rights of those citizens that do not belong to any religion in the city as absolute acceptance is required. The City Council reserves the right to decide whether they would allow major religions to put up statues or conduct a vote in the community to gauge the party that could erect a statue or not. It is important to consider the City Council as the judge, and it should not allow any religious group to erect a statue.
Thomas Hobbes argues that citizens should follow the sovereign authority’s instructions without deviating from this path. In this instance, every citizen in the area is a subject of the City Council and should not question its decisions. This notion stems from the fact that individuals in the community elected the people in power and consented to their leadership (Lloyd & Screedhar, 2018). They would go against their decisions by refusing to obey the law. As such, the City Council should not face any form of questioning and can unilaterally decide to make a decision that favors one religion or group over the rest.
However, individuals are allowed to consider self-interest in Hobbesian theory, which posits that a person should act in their interest if threatened. Allowing a particular group to erect a religious statue may be seen as a personal attack by certain groups. For instance, small religions may feel stifled if the larger ones were allowed to put up statues and denied the opportunity. In this scenario, the initial religion that sought permission from the City Council to erect its statue may discern it is under attack and refrain from following the law. In such a situation, Hobbes’ theory dictates it would be dissociating itself from the established rule and operating as if the city did not have any form of central power.
Hobbesian law is convoluted and confusing as it promotes both absolutism and self-preservation. An individual’s religion is a personal choice, and following a law that favors another religion in a scenario involving the statutes would be seen as a war against oneself. It follows that an individual would choose self-defense, leading to anarchy if one group was favored as it impedes their honor (Lloyd & Screedhar, 2018). Furthermore, a religious group may find it intolerable that they cannot posit their virtues because of others that conflict with their interests. In this case, they may feel underrepresented, breeding resentment against the government.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Hobbes’ theory cannot solve this case as it pits one’s interests against their absolute requirement to follow the law. On the other hand, Mills’ argument concerning utilitarianism is positively inclined to the good of the many. The government should conduct itself in conserving the best interest of all people living in the city. As such, Mills allows the City Council to decide that banning the statues is the best course of action to promote fairness and equality for its citizens. Therefore, using Mill’s argument enables every party to enjoy their rights and maximizes happiness while avoiding discriminatory practices. Using Hobbesian theory may lead to anarchy as the government may choose to act unilaterally. Banning statues is the logical and moral thing to do in this situation to address every party’s interest.
References
EU vs DiSiNFO. (2021). Mill and the virtuous circle of confidence through self-correction. EU vs DiSiNFO.
Libertarianism. (2020). An introduction to john Stuart Mill’s on liberty. Libertarianism.org.
Lloyd, S. A., & Sreedhar, S. (2018). Hobbes’s moral and political philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.