lute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological." (Mill 13) The second sphere of Mill's definition encompasses the general freedoms which allow an individual to freely peruse a "...life to suit our own character; of doing as we like..." (Mill 13). Mill also states that these freedoms must not be interfered with by "fellow creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them..." (Mill 13), no matter how odd, offensive and or immoral they may seem to others. The final sphere of Mill's definition of liberty is a combination of the first two. He states that "...the freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others: the persons combining being supposed to be of full age, and not forced and or deceived." (Mill 14) Locke and Mill's definitions of freedom must be qualified. Since the definitions they present in their respective literature are distinct from one another, when each philosopher refers to freedom or liberty they are not citing the same concept. This distinction is necessary when comparing their positions regarding the amount of freedom man should have in a political society. What one philosopher considers an overt an perverse abuse of liberty the other may consider the action completely legitimate and justifiable. John Locke believes that men should be virtually unrestricted and free in political society. Locke's rational for this liberal position lies in the twin foundation of man's naturally good inclinations and the specific and limited ends Locke believes political societies ought to have. According to Locke the only freedoms men should lose when entering into a political society are "equality, liberty and executive power they has in the state of nature into the hands of society." (Locke 73) In Locke's ideal society this fails to limit or remove any freedom from the individual, it only removes the responsibility of protecting these freedoms from the i...
