modern world, there is a high chance of misinterpreting customs yielding to a distorted meaning, while some other rituals may seem not proper for certain group or society of people. Besides, even though no one has questioned about the reason behind custom adherence, it is clear that custom cannot improve the personally of any person because of the truth that people develop the act to judge, distinguish, analyze and anticipate only when decisions made are independent (Devigne, 2006). The differences in Plato and Mill approaches in regard to customs have the implication that Mill is not of the opinion that it is an obligation to be followed because of the fact that it is majorly being accepted in the society, while Plato seems to advocate for
This means that the above statement does not only exclude children alone but also the underdeveloped nations. This gives the implication that Mill is of the opinion that upon attaining the objective of tyranny, despotism can be used to some extent of barbaric civilizations; Mill further explains it is not easy to prevent those with tyranny of majority from putting in place laws that favor them. It is also important to consider a view by a recent writer who proposed that it is not a crusade but a civilization that can overrule the polygamous society in what it believes to be low grade achievement for civilization. According to the writer, it seems that one community can force another one to be civilized (Mill, 2001). In addition, the author stresses that the liberty concepts to be introduced to developing countries is limited since such liberty may not have the ability to solve their issues, but instead it may yield to more problems (Mill, 2001). It is worth noting that while Mill justifies and recognizes the oppressive regime in some states in the attempt to obtain benefits, Plato opposes tyranny in its manifestations irrespective of the level of development of the nation. Plato is of the opinion that tyranny is not supposed to be defended by intentions of
(Urbanati & Zakaras, 2007). Firstly, regarding the relation between citizens and state, Mill is of the opinion that the idea of the liberty notion being connected to the personality of human beings, which can be termed as an individual’s ability to have their own natural character, specific lifestyle and own opinion is a correct idea. According to Mill the important role of individuality in the provision of liberty is that the free individuality development is a leading essential for the well-being of human; this means that this element is not only coordinating with other elements such as instruction, education, culture, but it is an essential element because it a condition to those aspects; thus no danger of undervaluing liberty, and there will be an extraordinary difficulty in adjusting the boundaries between social control and liberty. (Mill, 2001) In fact, a society that is genuinely open is supposed to accept individuality in its diversity and does not provide a limitation to it according to the common opinion; besides,