Freedom Of Freedom In John Stuart Mill's On Liberty

Decent Essays
Can society advance without all of its people? In John Stuart Mill’s essay “On Liberty”, he makes the argument that we should have the freedom to perform any actions we wish, as long as those are not causing harm to any others. Mill makes a number of justifications for his argument throughout his essay. He understands that in order for society to function, there needs to be certain restrictions on individual’s liberty. He believes society’s control over an individual’s liberty should only be restricted to prevent harm to others. Mill views this as being important to prevent tyranny of the government and public opinion. Mill acknowledges how freedom of speech is important for society’s progression over time. Although Mill makes essential guidelines …show more content…
His standpoint is that the government should not interfere with people’s lives unless it is to prevent harm to another person. He sees this as the only time the government can legitimately interfere with an individual’s liberty. Mill believes people should have the freedom to do whatever actions they wish to themselves when he states “His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” (Mill, 13). Mill does not view something as extreme as an individual harming themselves as grounds for the government to restrict a person’s liberty. This argument from Mill is conflictive with present day society with many laws in place to protect individuals from harming themselves. A present day example of this is drug possession being a crime punishable by law. Examples of laws such as these, play an import role in deterring people from potentially causing harm to themselves. Should society play a role in protecting individuals from harming …show more content…
Although truth can be subjective, it is necessary for society to advance. Truth progresses through history, we can only know truth through objections over time. For Mill, limiting individual freedoms could result in a situation where “...[people] are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth” (Mill, 19). Mill believes that people are hurt by silencing ideas that could possibly be true. Without allowing all ideas to be heard, people can easily fall into a false sense of security that what they believe is true because of the opinions of the majority. He knows that the popular opinion is not always correct, which is why we must allow freedom of speech and opinion. Mill sees the importance for all opinions to be heard so that the opportunity can arise for people to exchange error for truth. He believes that a person can only firmly believe something is true if it is able to withstand contraction and disapproval. This can only happen if there is liberty to criticize others opinions, if there is not liberty to do so, then we can lose the opportunity to challenge our

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Mill focuses on the concept of a clear distinction between when the authority of society can limit individuality and when there can be “sovereignty of the individual over himself”; however, he also argues the point that control should be given whenever society and the individual have an interest in a particular part of human life (82). Mill rejects the notion of a social contract, which Locke argues for, but due to the protections provided by society, the citizens owe a return for these benefits. He defines the harm principle by each individual having the right to act however they please, as long as it does not affect the person undertaking the action. Society cannot intervene, even if the act the person is committing causes harm to them. Each…

    • 1426 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The excessive autonomy proposed by the principle will be counterproductive to the rule of law. People could not be allowed to live the way they want; the world will be in chaos. This is because of the ever-eroding moral fabric. The two principles could be applied by striking a balance on their enforcement. In this regard, there should not be too much force from the government on the people and neither should they be given too much freedom.…

    • 787 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In a democratic society, it is generally considered the Government's role to promote morality and justice within its citizens and seek to restrict supposedly immoral and unjust acts. Thus if an act is to be considered immoral, it seems obvious to suggest that the government is justified in restricting it regardless of whether it is harmful to others. In ‘On Liberty' John Stuart Mill discusses the harm principle as: "The only purpose for which power can be rightly exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (68). Mill’s states that a government or society does not have the right to prevent people from actions unless the actions are harmful to others in society. Although government intervention…

    • 1190 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Devlin and Dworkin agree that not every individual is capable of giving consent and there should be restrictions of what individuals are capable of such, this would allow legal intervention in some of the acts Devlin considers immoral. Public morality is something that comes from justification not from a reasonable man making decisions for society as a whole. Although if a society has an overwhelming opposition to an act that Dworkin would deem as justificatory then there should be a right to overturn such act otherwise it could potentially be more harmful to society than prohibiting…

    • 1204 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In order for society to progress, individual freedoms must always be expressed foremost. Indeed, Mill agrees that man should not behave in ways that would harm others but they should still be free to do as they wish. He states, “In all such cases there should be personal freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand the consequences” (Mill, 64). But, in defining freedom, as expressed earlier,…

    • 1838 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    With this famous expression, Rousseau asserts that modern states repress the physical freedom that is our birthright and do very little to secure our civil freedom. It should be stated that there’s a difference between natural and civil liberty: natural liberty is the freedom to pursue one’s own desires whereas civil liberty is the freedom to pursue the general will. In Rousseau’s Social Contract, the general will is an important concept and it is defined as the will of the people as a whole. It cannot be transmitted and it is always right. To put the general will in context, human beings would act according to the general will if we were not depraved by society.…

    • 1793 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Freedom is a concept that cannot be mutually defined by all. This is because of the various aspects that impact one perception on what freedom is and how it should be achieved. Through the text Introduction to Social and Political Society by Omid Payrow Shabani and Monique Deveaux, Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill provide their unique philosophies on the concept on freedom and liberty. Kant stands behind positive liberty and advocates that the government can act as an institutionalized version of the best parts of ourselves meaning that freedom does not mean an absence of government but one that helps everyone become more reasonable. Mill, on the other hand, supports negative freedom and believes that the state should only intervene when…

    • 1090 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Mill argued that under freedom of thought the majority of opinions are unsound because society does not consider the minority’s point of view. He believed that the truth could only come from the requirements of an open inquiry to all and not just to the ones that may prove to be right. In other words manipulated and unfairly just actions will produce the wrong outcome. He felt that if the truth was invigorated and supported by becoming exposed and criticized then issue could be viewed as adequate and fair (Philosophy Pages, 2015). Mill implied that a person’s conduct and concepts deserves to be protected from social violation.…

    • 1137 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Mill states that if the truth is censored, society will continue living in falsehood and therefore it cannot progress. He believes that humans are rational and therefore must be interested in the truth. If truthful opinions and ideas were censored, new discoveries cannot be established despite those discoveries potentially being world changing. I agree that censoring ideas is harmful to society because the ideas could be true. For example, if the truth that the earth is round was censored, explorers would not have gone out and discovered more land.…

    • 1434 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    John Stuart Mill discusses his theory on human nature in On Liberty. Mill portrayed his belief of the Harm Principle, which can be presented as the following: as long as one’s actions are not harming another person, the government nor society should intrude. The Harm Principle also protects the three basic liberties of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom to pursue tastes. Mill believes that the government should have the interests and opinions of the public in mind. On top of that, Mill feels as though an oppressed opinion results in a loss for society because even if an opinion is false, it may have some truth to it, and unless the opinion is voiced, the truth will never be heard.…

    • 1373 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays