John Stuart Mill:

On Liberty

Is it ever ok to restrict someone else's liberty? If so when?

Background

Mill is perhaps most famous as the father of classical liberalism. A copy of On Liberty is still given to the president of the Liberal Democrat party in the United Kingdom. The aim of the essay is to apply the principles of Utilitarianism to government.

The Tyranny of the Majority

Mill begins by discussing the danger of tyranny. He argues that in the society of Victorian Britain, the danger of tyranny is less likely to come from a cruel ruler, but rather from society itself. He worries that it is possible that an idea, simply because it is believed by the majority of people, can bring about great suffering. For example, the majority of a population may think that it is right to kick immigrants out of the country, and this may be used as a justification for treating fellow human beings with a lack of respect. He sees the Tyranny of the Majority as the practical principle that guides the majority…

…to their opinions on the regulation of human conduct, is the feeling in each person’s mind that everybody should be required to act as he, and those with whom he sympathises, would like them to act.

—J S Mill, On Liberty

He argues that many people don’t realise that they are being tyrannical because their views seem so obviously true to themselves.

The Harm Principle

To protect against such a tyranny, Mill argues that we should follow, what has become known as, the Harm Principle. In short, the harm principle states that the only good reason for using your power over someone else is to prevent harm:

[T]he sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise.

—J S Mill, On Liberty

Mill believes that this principle is not justified by anything abstract, like natural rights, or religious belief. He believes that this principle follows entirely from the Principle of Utility.

Human progress built on human freedoms

Mill believed that society could progress. He thought that it could become fairer and that we could improve our methods and techniques of governance. However, he disagreed with the materialists like Marx who treated society like a machine. Instead, he argued that…

Human nature is not a machine to be built after a model, and set to do exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree, which requires to grow and develop itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing.

—J S Mill, On Liberty

From these central ideas he derived three core freedoms:

The freedom of character - the freedom to think and feel as we want (and express those thoughts and feelings).
The freedom to pursue tastes (even those called immoral).
The freedom to unite - form groups, parties, unions.

Of course, each of these freedoms is limited by the harm principle. We must not express a thought, pursue a taste, or unite with others if it causes harm to others.

Too vague, too weak?

Some have argued that Mill’s vision is too vague and leaves too many difficult and borderline questions unanswered. For example, what counts as ‘avoiding harm’? If I put a child in detention for not doing their homework, am I causing harm or avoiding it? Is putting people in prison avoiding harm or preventing it? How do we judge such difficult cases?

The second criticism of Mill is that he doesn’t demand enough. Society is horribly unfair, with prejudice entrenched in our systems. OK society might be a living thing, but is it a tree, or is it a cancer?

Tasks

Explain the argument of Mill's 'On Liberty':
- Explain Mill’s notion of the ‘tyranny of the majority’.
- Explain Mill’s ‘harm principle’.
- Explain Mill’s vision of how society progresses.
Give one objection to Mill's argument.
What do you think of Mill’s ideas? Explain your answer.

Page updated

Report abuse