Liberalism JS Mill Note
Liberalism JS Mill Note
Liberalism JS Mill Note
Liberalism
JS. Mill On Liberty
Summary for Exams
These are some of the key terms, which must be kept in mind before reading JS Mill.
a. Liberty - For Mill, liberty encompasses both civil and social liberty, which he defines as "the
nature and limits of the power of which can be legitimately exercised by society over the
individual." Mill argues that society can only exert authority over behavior that harms other
people, anything else is an abrogation of individual freedom.
b. Tyranny of the majority - This is the concept that in a democratic state the majority of people
can impose its will on a minority. Mill believes this behavior is "tyrannical" when it violates a
claim that the minority has as a member of society.
c. Social Contract - This reflects the idea that society is something that people either explicitly
or implicitly agreed to be part of. Social contract theory was first formulated by Rousseau in
The Social Contract, and defines rights as those things that people would have agreed to
have protected by society, and duties as those things people would have agreed to take on
as obligations, had they been present at the formation of the state.
d. Infallible - Incapable of making a mistake or being wrong.
Chapter 1:
Mill starts off by limiting the scope of his essay to Civil, or Social Liberty. He writes that this essay will
look at what kind of power society can legitimately exert over the individual. Mill predicts that this
question will become increasingly important because some humans have entered a more civilized
stage of development, which presents "new conditions" under which issues of individual liberty must
be addressed.
Mill then turns to an overview of the development of the concept of liberty. In ancient Greece,
Rome and England, liberty implied "protection against the tyranny of political rulers," and rulers and
subjects were often thought to have a necessarily antagonistic relationship. The leader did not govern
by the will of his people, and while his power was seen as necessary, it was also considered
dangerous. Patriots tried to limit the leader's power in two ways: 1) They gained immunities called
Jurisprudence 2018_Ahmad Waqas
"political liberties or rights." The leader was thought to have a duty to respect these immunities, and
there was a right of rebellion if these rights and liberties were infringed.
2) Constitutional checks developed, under which the community or their representatives gained some
power of consent over important acts of governance.
Mill writes that eventually men progressed to a point where they wanted their leaders to be their
servants, and to reflect their interests and will. It was thought that it was not necessary to limit this
new kind of ruler's power, because he was accountable to the people, and there was no fear of the
people tyrannizing itself. However, when an actual democratic republic developed (The United
States), it was realized that the people don't rule themselves. Rather, the people with power exercise
it over those without power. In particular, a majority may consciously try to oppress a minority. Mill
writes that this concept of a tyranny of the majority has come to be accepted by major thinkers. Mill,
however, argues that society can also tyrannize without using political means. Rather, the power of
public opinion can be more stifling to individuality and dissent than any law could be. Thus, he writes
that there must also be protection for people against the prevailing public opinions, and the tendency
of society to impose its values on others.
The question, then, as Mill sees it, is where and how to limit public opinion's sway over individual
independence. There has been very little consensus among nations about the answer to this question,
and people tend to be very complacent about their own customs in dealing with dissent. People tend
to believe that having strong feelings on a subject makes having reasons for that belief unnecessary,
failing to realize that without reasons their beliefs are mere preferences, often reflecting self-interest.
Furthermore, on the occasions when individuals do question the imposition of public opinion on social
standards, they are usually questioning what things society should like or dislike, not the more
general question of whether society's preferences should be imposed on others. Mill also notes that
in England there is no recognized principle by which to judge legislative interference in private
conduct.
After laying out the major issues, Mill then turns to what he calls "the object of his essay." He writes
that he will argue that the only time individuals or society as a whole can interfere with individual
liberty is for self-protection. Mill states that the argument that a certain law or public opinion might
be for an individual's own good or welfare does not suffice to justify that law or public opinion as a
coercive force; coercion by the many toward the individual is only acceptable when an individual
poses a threat to others. It is fine to argue with a person about his actions, but not to compel him. Mill
writes, "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
Mill notes that the right of liberty does not apply to children, or to "backward" societies. It is only
when people are capable of learning from discussion that liberty holds; otherwise the people must be
taken care of. Mill also notes that he is not justifying the claim of liberty as an abstract right. Rather,
he is grounding it in utility, on the permanent interests of mankind. Mill writes that if a person causes
harm to others actively or inactively, it is appropriate for society to condemn him legally or through
general disapprobation. Individuals can even be compelled to do good for other people, such as to
save someone's life, because to do otherwise would be to cause evil to another person. In contrast,
society only has an indirect interest in what a person does to himself or to other freely consenting
people.
Mill divides the appropriate sphere of human liberty falls into three categories, claiming that any free
society must respect all three. First, there is the domain of the conscience, and liberty of individual
thought and opinion. Second, there is planning one's own life, and the liberty of tastes and pursuits.
Third, there is the liberty to unite with other consenting individuals for any purpose that does not
harm others. These liberties reflect the idea that true freedom means pursuing one's own good in
one's own way, as long as it does not prevent others from doing the same. These ideas directly
contradict society's increasing tendency to demand conformity, and unless moral conviction turns
against this tendency, the demand for conformity will only increase.
Chapter 2:
In Chapter 2, Mill turns to the issue of whether people, either through their government or on their
own, should be allowed to coerce or limit anyone else's expression of opinion. Mill emphatically says
that such actions are illegitimate. Even if only one person held a particular opinion, mankind would
not be justified in silencing him. Silencing these opinions, Mill says, is wrong because it robs "the
human race, posterity as well as the existing generation." In particular, it robs those who disagree
Jurisprudence 2018_Ahmad Waqas
with these silenced opinions. Mill then turns to the reasons why humanity is hurt by silencing
opinions. His first argument is that the suppressed opinion may be true. He writes that since human
beings are not infallible, they have no authority to decide an issue for all people, and to keep others
from coming up with their own judgments. Mill asserts that the reason why liberty of opinion is so
often in danger is that in practice people tend to be confident in their own rightness, and excluding
that, in the infallibility of the world they come in contact with. Mill contends that such confidence is
not justified, and that all people are hurt by silencing potentially true ideas.
After presenting his first argument, Mill looks at possible criticisms of his reasoning and responds to
them. First, there is the criticism that even though people may be wrong, they still have a duty to act
on their "conscientious conviction." When people are sure that they are right, they would be cowardly
not to act on that belief and to allow doctrines to be expressed that they believe will hurt mankind. To
this, Mill replies that the only way that a person can be confident that he is right is if there is complete
liberty to contradict and disprove his beliefs. Humans have the capacity to correct their mistakes, but
only through experience and discussion. Human judgment is valuable only in so far as people remain
open to criticism. Thus, the only time a person can be sure he is right is if he is constantly open to
differing opinions; there must be a standing invitation to try to disprove his beliefs. Second, there is
the criticism that governments have a duty to uphold certain beliefs that are important to the well
being of society. Only "bad" men would try to undermine these beliefs. Mill replies that this argument
still relies on an assumption of infallibility--the usefulness of an opinion is still something up for
debate, and it still requires discussion. Furthermore, the truth of a belief is integral to whether it is
desirable for it to be believed. Mill observes that the assumption of infallibility about a certain
question implies that one not only feels very sure about a belief, but also includes the attempt to try
to decide that question for other people. It is in stifling dissenting opinions in the name of social good
that some of the most horrible mistakes in human history have been made. Mill writes about Socrates
and Jesus Christ, two illustrious figures in history, who were put to death for blasphemy because their
beliefs were radical for their times. Mill then considers whether society should be able to censor an
opinion that rejects a common moral belief or the existence of God and a future state. He gives the
example of Emperor Marcus Aurelius, a just and kind man who still persecuted Christianity, failing to
see its value to society. Mill argues that if one is to accept the legitimacy of punishing irreligious
opinions, one must also accept that if one felt, like Marcus Aurelius did, that Christianity was
dangerous, one would also be justified in punishing Christianity.
Third, Mill considers the criticism that truth may be justifiably persecuted, because persecution is
something that truth should have to face, and it will always survive. Mill replies that such a sentiment
is harshly unfair to those who actually are persecuted for holding true ideas. By discovering something
true, these people have performed a great service to humanity.
Supporting the persecution of such people suggests that their contributions are not truly being
valued. Mill also contends that it is wrong to assume that "truth always triumphs over persecution." It
may take centuries for truth to reemerge after it is suppressed. For example, Mill writes that the
Reformation of the Catholic Church was put down twenty times before Martin Luther was successful.
It is mere sentimentality to think that truth is stronger than error, although truth will tend to be
rediscovered over time if it is extinguished.
Fourth, Mill responds to the possible argument against him that since we do not actually put
dissenters to death any more, no true opinion will ever be extinguished. Mill replies that legal
persecution for opinions is still significant in society, for example in the case of blasphemy or atheism.
There is also no guarantee, given general public opinion that more extreme forms of legal persecution
will not reemerge. In addition, there continues to be social intolerance of dissent. Mill argues that
societal intolerance causes people to hide their views, and stifles intellectualism and independent
thought. Stifling freethinking hurts truth, no matter whether a particular instance of freethinking
leads to false conclusions.