Mill’s Liberty Principle Essay Example Essay Example

Mill’s Liberty Principle Essay Example Paper Mill’s Liberty Principle Essay Introduction John Stuart Mill was born in London to a philosopher father, James Mill, who educated him along with philosopher Jeremy Bentham. Mill was therefore largely influenced by Bentham’s utilitarian thinking, and such influence became apparent in Mill’s own works later on. (Mautner).Mill’s liberty principle was laid out in his essay that was published in 1859, entitled On Liberty. This essay brought about great controversy, and raised varying feelings of approval and disapproval from society. (Mautner). On Liberty, which was destined to be a classic piece on libertarian philosophy, became controversial because of its â€Å"rational justification of the freedom of the individual in opposition to the claims of the state to impose unlimited control.† (Serendipity).The essay focused on civil or social liberty, which means the â€Å"nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual.† Mill espoused the principle of liberty of action of men with full mental faculties, limited only by the principle of self-protection. (Mill, 1859).Mill’s principle of liberty was a product of the feeling he and his wife shared, as expressed in their letters to one another. Both had observed that there has been a significant decrease in the number of bold and adventurous individuals in society. This observation, coupled with Mill’s reading of Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, bred disquiet in him. He and his wife thus feared that middle-class conformism and mass democracy had come to take away individual liberty. They feared that mass democracy would lead to the creation of the tyranny of the majority, which would seriously undermine individual freedom. (Mautner).Mill’s anxiety is more concerned with liberty in the private realm. He was worried that the development of liberalism at his time was not sufficient to protect private, individual liberty. In more concrete terms, M ill perceived two threats to individual liberty. The first one is the threat of overpowering governmental authority, mainly exercised through codified laws and appointed or elected public officials. Second is the â€Å"excessive power of public opinion and its unwritten laws,† which Mill referred to as the tyranny of the majority. (Johnston, 1999).As to the first threat or governmental authority, Mill maintained that there must be sufficient room left for individual determination of man’s actions, rather than state determination. This must be so, despite the alleged reliance of the government on the democratic participation of the people. (Kemerling).On the other hand, Mill appeared to be more fearful of the effects of the second threat to individual liberty, which is the tyranny of the majority. (Serendipity). While state control can only occur through the acts of public officials, society can impose its own mandates, through means more powerful and more extensive in reach than the state’s political functionaries. Society can form itself into a tyranny whereby only certain ideas, opinions and feelings are sanctioned, effectively restraining the ideas, opinions and feelings of a few dissenters. This in effect is a restriction on individual liberty, which is much more formidable than political oppression. The minority would be compelled to fashion themselves in such a way as to conform to the dictates of society. (Mill, 1859).Reacting on these two perceived threats to individual liberty, Mill’s On Liberty put forward a brave statement. It is of the position that there is almost no instance when governmental encroachment on individual freedoms would be justified or warranted. The civil liberties of citizens must, at all times, be protected against the threat of abuses of authority. (Kemerling).Mill posits that there is one simple principle that must govern man in all his dealings in society. Society and the state have many mechanisms for imposing compulsion and control over man, which may consist of physical force or moral coercion. According to Mill, the former may appear in the form of legal penalties, while the latter may appear in the form of public opinion. Despite these, man must have liberty or independence in matters that only concern himself. As Mill succinctly put: â€Å"Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.† (Mill, 1859).Mill’s emphasis on liberty entails that man deserves not to be hampered by society. Where nobody would be harmed by a man’s actions, his actions are exclusively his business. The same goes true for man’s thoughts. They must always be afforded protection against unjustified encroachment. (Mill, 1859).Man’s actions and thoughts must arise without restrictions, controls or limits, as a result of his character as an individual human being. Different people have different preferences and choices regarding the various detai ls of his life, and people owe it to each other to respect each person’s right to follow their own paths. According to Mill, despite the prevailing opinions and ideologies, each person has the right to choose his own unique path in life, even if it means having to go against the grain of society. Thus, the two great threats to liberty, government encroachment and the tyranny of the majority, must not curtail the liberty of persons, especially in the realm of thought. This is so, because it is in the realm of thought that great personal genius can be manifested, usually signified by unconventionality and originality. (Mill, 1859).It can be argued by critics that Mill’s arguments seem to be based only on a positive assumption of the inclinations of man. As Mill advocates almost absolute freedom of man in his thoughts and actions, he probably worked on the belief that man’s natural tendency is towards his development only, and not towards his ruin. Then if this is so, empirical evidence could easily rebut such an assumption, because not a few men had engaged in harmful ways that have led to their detriment. However, Mill’s liberty principle does not go so far as making such a huge assumption on the nature of man.As a matter of fact, Mill had some suggestions of the possibility that man would make wrong decision in his exercise of individual liberty. Mill, however, was not concerned about such mistakes. Liberty to him was so encompassing that nobody has the right to interfere with matters which are properly within a man’s private interests. This is so, despite the fact that man’s choices might turn out to be detrimental to him in the long run. (Johnston, 1999).For Mill, concerns of society or the government on the physical or moral good of an individual still would not be sufficient to justify any encroachment on his liberty of thought and action. While concerns regarding another person’s interests are commendable, such cannot be used to justify unauthorized intrusion into that person’s life. One can convince another person the better path to take, or show the errors of his ways, but that would be the most that such person can do to help another. He cannot go so far as to compel another to adopt his philosophies in life. In the same way, other persons who might disagree with him would not have the right to tell him off. Thus, Mill wrote: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 opinions 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. (Mill, 1859).;However, Mill provided a single exception to the abovementioned general rul e of individual liberty: self-protection. Mill stated: â€Å"the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.† (Mill, 1859).Mill thus introduced the harm principle, which is the standard that can be used to evaluate government interference as either justified or unjustified. Harm to others, and not to the person whose acts are subject of inquiry, is the operative fact that would sanction curtailment of liberty. Thus, where an individual’s actions start posing a threat to other persons, and these actions begin to extend their effects to the realm outside the individual’s sphere of responsiiblity, society and government would be justified in stepping in to provide restraints. It is clear, therefore, that Mill draws an unambiguous line between state and private interests: â€Å"individual citizens are responsible for themselves, their thoughts and feelings, and th eir own tastes and pursuits, while society is properly concerned only with social interests.† (Kemerling).The power of government and society to interfere with the liberty of thought and action of a person can only be rightfully exercised with the end in view of preventing harm to others. Thus, there would be a legitimate state and societal interest in deterring or penalizing actions that are â€Å"calculated to produce evil to some one else.† In conclusion, Mill’s liberty principle states that man is individually responsible for his own conduct and he is free to do whatever he wants, provided he does not harm others. Man is only accountable to the government and society for conduct that concerns others.Applying Mill’s liberty principle to the plight of homeless people in Chicago suburbs, it can be suggested that the state has no legitimate interest nor authority in interfering with these people’s activities, provided that they do not harm others wh o are living within the area. Thus, provided that these homeless people do not engage in crimes, drug dealing or violence, to the detriment of the rightful population of Chicago suburbs, there is no justifiable reason for encroaching upon these people’s liberty to live in that kind of situation.However, where there are legitimate concerns that threaten the peaceful state of living in Chicago suburbs as a direct result of the presence and the actions of homeless people, such as increased crime rate, pollution or health issues due to overpopulation, then the government would be justified in stepping in to deter these harmful actions. Detrimental actions are no longer covered by the protection advocated by Mill in favor of individual liberty. Mill’s Liberty Principle Essay Thank you for reading this Sample!