In 1859, a philosopher named John Stuart Mill wrote a book titled On Liberty which discusses his defense of "toleration" in a liberal view. This view is closely related to the concept of utilitarianism, a system to which Mill contributed so radically that even after 154 years of possible erasure of criticism, his efforts, but more importantly, his work, have not only been approved, but also adopted, thanks to its very appropriate symbolism. This book asked some philosophical questions, and through its five chapters he discusses his preference for tolerance, but only to a certain extent. One could easily review Mill's writings and suggest that his concepts are comparable to contemporary views of society. overwhelming majority. He discusses “liberty,” an idea reflected and supported in many doctrines. Although Mill believes in the concept of tolerance and suggests that individuals should be allowed to think freely, he does not believe that all beliefs and lifestyles should be tolerated. It solidified the idea that there should be no interference with freedom of thought or freedom of expression. However, he highlights the impracticality associated with "lack of speech interference". Mill refutes the idea that humans can say whatever they want, not least because it would undoubtedly cause madness and strife. This idea reflects a concept similar to the Bill of Rights, a document that guarantees basic rights and freedoms to all Americans. However, it is your responsibility to avoid making offensive or threatening statements. As there are always exclusions to the rules, there is an exclusion to this precise principle. All Mill is trying to argue is that even if we can exercise our basic right ... middle of paper ... the safety is that the offense itself is not harm. Harm concerns the actual physical injury and bodily harm of an individual. However, violating property and depriving someone of their liberty does not constitute physical injury, but nevertheless harm in the theoretical sense. In John Stuart Mill's defense of tolerance, it is not impossible to make objective assessments of people's beliefs and lifestyles. He believes that some lifestyles are truly better than others and that we should not tolerate all lifestyles, especially if those lifestyles involve a mutilation of societal values. He uses the system of utilitarianism to solidify his concepts. His idea of ​​optimal happiness is closely linked to his belief in respecting people's opinions and lifestyles. However, he believes it is foolish to tolerate all points of view. Individuals have a duty to respect others, even if they make "objective assessments ».”