Mill’s “On Liberty”

John Stuart Mill begins the first chapter of “On Liberty” by posing the central question asking how should the relationship be between a government and those it governs? He believes it to be a question that should continue to be asked, for, to him, liberty is defined as the protections against tyranny. He goes on to give a brief history of leadership and government, stating that, in the past, people believed that leaders were necessary to protect the interest of those considered to be weaker in society; however, they also understood that there needed to be limits on their leaders to protect from total control and they did so by establishing rights of citizens that, if infringed upon, would allow for the protest and removal of their leaders. Over time, people wanted their leaders to be more representative of themselves while also being electable and temporary in order to further prevent tyrannical rule and promote leadership that benefited the governed; however, this form of leadership soon showed its faults, including what Mill calls a “tyranny of the majority” and similar issues in which society needed protection against itself. Mill argues that social tyranny is even worse than political tyranny due to the inability to escape so there should be protections put in place but the practicality of said protections is a little harder to sort out. Mill states that the rules in society have always been important, but change from generation to generation as everyone conforms and believes that others should conform too, stemming from the “ascendant class.” However, there is one similarity that tends to untie everyone — religion. Most people have a religion to believe in and tend to show intolerance to others. Mill ends the first chapter by explaining that, in his essay, he will explain a “self-protection” principle that will clarify how society can deal with people in social and political ways. Society cannot force people to do things, but the only way a person would have to answer to society is if their actions effect others, meaning that society cannot have a say over actions that only impact the individual themselves and that utility is the best reasoning to find answers to ethical questions.

In chapter 4, Mill continues his idea that people are allowed to do any action they please as long as they do not impact others, meaning society should only interfere when the individuals actions affect other peoples. Therefore, people do not have the right to act against the benefit of society and should act to maintain security and order. Mill encourages people to get involved and attempt to influence others to act in a beneficial way to society, but ultimately cannot force them to act in a certain way, even towards themselves, and states that people should be judged on their positive and negative qualities. Mill states that most people will not separate actions that impact only individuals versus the larger group due to the fact that people live in common society rather than isolation and their mistakes can impact others. In regards to long established vices or actions of those deemed unfit, Mill states that an action can be punished if said action hurts others. If their actions do not violate others, society cannot do anything to prohibit them and if they are to take action to limit their actions, it should be to protect them against themselves rather than acting as if it was for the benefit of society, and must wait until a wrong is committed before acting. Mill argues that the best argument against interference with others actions is that it is driven by the majority against beliefs against the rest of society and is considered offensive by many. He then goes on to give examples of “moral policing” that can go against peoples’ liberties, such a prohibiting the sale of alcohol, which in turn punishes those who drink in private.

In chapter 5, Mill restates that the principles that he discusses in his essay must be debated by society before a practical implementation can work. According to Mill, there are two maxims that form his main point: an individual’s actions, as long as they only impact themselves, cannot be restricted by society and they can only suggest other actions, and that if a persons actions do impact others, they should be punished either legally or socially. Mill then clarifies that even if an action hurts another, not every action needs to be punished, like defeating another in a competition, because the action itself has already be determined by society as acceptable as long as it was achieved honestly. Mill then goes on to describe trade as a social act that under free trade, allows merchants to decide prices and how they wish to conduct business. Although society’s hold over businesses is vague, merchants are encouraged to take measures to prevent evil action. Returning to the idea of self-regarding action, it is difficult to regulate actions they may lead to harmful actions. In the example of drunk people, society should not limit drinking but take measures to prevent known violent drunks from reaching the point of harm. People are allowed to protect their best interest but Mill notes that it is impossible to make a long term commitment due to the unpredictability of life, so society can encourage different path but cannot force action.

Mill proposes many ways to tackle social tyranny and relationships that need further debate and discussion to implement but pose a way to maintain peace and respect in society to allow others to live their best lives.