Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Summum Bonum: On Liberty Is A Philosophical Work by The
Summum Bonum: On Liberty Is A Philosophical Work by The
originally intended as a short essay. The work, published in 1859, applies Mill's
ethical system of utilitarianism to society and the state.[1][2] Mill attempts to
establish standards for the relationship between authority and liberty. He
emphasizes the importance of individuality, which he conceived as a
prerequisite to the higher pleasures—the summum bonum of utilitarianism.
Furthermore, Mill criticizes the errors of past attempts to defend individuality
where, for example, democratic ideals resulted in the "tyranny of the majority".
Among the standards established in this work are Mill's three basic liberties of
individuals, his three legitimate objections to government intervention, and his
two maxims regarding the relationship of the individual to society.
On Liberty was a greatly influential and well received work, although it did not
go without criticism. Some attacked it for its apparent discontinuity with
Utilitarianism, while others criticized its vagueness. The ideas presented in On
Liberty have remained the basis of much liberal political thought. It has
remained in print continuously since its initial publication. To this day, a copy of
On Liberty is passed to the president of the British Liberal Democrats as a
symbol of office. A copy of the same book is also presented to and then held by
the president of the Liberal Party as a symbol of office.
Mill's marriage to his wife Harriet Taylor Mill greatly influenced the concepts in
On Liberty, which was largely finished prior to her death, and published shortly
after she died.
Introduction
John Stuart Mill opens his essay by discussing the historical "struggle between
authority and liberty," describing the tyranny of government, which, in his view,
needs to be controlled by the liberty of the citizens. He divides this control of
authority into two mechanisms: necessary rights belonging to citizens, and the
"establishment of constitutional checks by which the consent of the community,
or of a body of some sort, supposed to represent its interests, was made a
necessary condition to some of the more important acts of the governing power."
Because society was—in its early stages—subjected to such turbulent conditions
(i.e. small population and constant war), it was forced to accept rule "by a
master." However, as mankind progressed, it became conceivable for the people
to rule themselves. Mill admits that this new form of society seemed immune to
tyranny because "there was no fear of tyrannizing over self." Despite the high
hopes of the Enlightenment, Mill argues that the democratic ideals were not as
easily met as expected. First, even in democracy, the rulers were not always the
same sort of people as the ruled. Second, there is a risk of a "tyranny of the
majority" in which the many oppress the few who, according to democratic
ideals, have just as much a right to pursue their legitimate ends.
In Mill's view, tyranny of the majority is worse than tyranny of government
because it is not limited to a political function. Where one can be protected from
a tyrant, it is much harder to be protected "against the tyranny of the prevailing
opinion and feeling." The prevailing opinions within society will be the basis of
all rules of conduct within society; thus there can be no safeguard in law against
the tyranny of the majority. Mill's proof goes as follows: the majority opinion
may not be the correct opinion. The only justification for a person's preference
for a particular moral belief is that it is that person's preference. On a particular
issue, people will align themselves either for or against that issue; the side of
greatest volume will prevail, but is not necessarily correct. In conclusion to this
analysis of past governments, Mill proposes a single standard for which a
person's liberty may be restricted:
That 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.
His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant ... Over
himself, over his body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
Mill clarifies that this standard is solely based on utility. Therefore, when it is
not useful, it may be ignored. For example, according to Mill, children and
"barbarian" nations are benefited by limited freedom. Just despots, such as
Charlemagne and Akbar the Great, were historically beneficial to people not yet
fit to rule themselves.
1. The freedom of thought and emotion. This includes the freedom to act on
such thought, i.e. freedom of speech
2. The freedom to pursue tastes (provided they do no harm to others), even if
they are deemed "immoral"
3. The freedom to unite so long as the involved members are of age, the
involved members are not forced, and no harm is done to others
While Mill admits that these freedoms could—in certain situations—be pushed
aside, he claims that in contemporary and civilised societies there is no
justification for their removal.
In the second chapter, J. S. Mill attempts to prove his claim from the first
chapter that opinions ought never to be suppressed. Looking to the consequences
of suppressing opinions, he concludes that opinions ought never to be
suppressed, stating, "Such prejudice, or oversight, when it [i.e. false belief]
occurs, is altogether an evil; but it is one from which we cannot hope to be
always exempt, and must be regarded as the price paid for an inestimable good."
He claims that there are three sorts of beliefs that can be had—wholly false,
partly true, and wholly true—all of which, according to Mill, benefit the
common good:
In the third chapter, J. S. Mill points out the inherent value of individuality since
individuality is ex vi termini (i.e. by definition) the thriving of the human person
through the higher pleasures. He argues that a society ought to attempt to
promote individuality as it is a prerequisite for creativity and diversity. With this
in mind, Mill believes that conformity is dangerous. He states that he fears that
Western civilization approaches this well-intentioned conformity to
praiseworthy maxims characterized by the Chinese civilization. Therefore, Mill
concludes that actions in themselves do not matter. Rather, the person behind the
action and the action together are valuable. He writes:
“ It really is of importance, not only what men do, but also what
manner of men they are that do it. Among the works of man, which
human life is rightly employed in perfecting and beautifying, the first
in importance surely is man himself. Supposing it were possible to get
houses built, corn grown, battles fought, causes tried, and even
churches erected and prayers said, by machinery—by automatons in
human form—it would be a considerable loss to exchange for these
automatons even the men and women who at present inhabit the more
civilised parts of the world, and who assuredly are but starved
specimens of what nature can and will produce. 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. ”
In the fourth chapter, J. S. Mill explains a system in which a person can discern
what aspects of life should be governed by the individual and which by society.
Generally, he holds that a person should be left as free to pursue his own
interests as long as this does not harm the interests of others. In such a situation,
"society has jurisdiction over [the person's conduct].” He rejects the idea that
this liberty is simply for the purpose of allowing selfish indifference. Rather, he
argues that this liberal system will bring people to the good more effectively
than physical or emotional coercion. This principle leads him to conclude that a
person may, without fear of just punishment, do harm to himself through vice.
Governments, he claims, should only punish a person for neglecting to fulfill a
duty to others (or causing harm to others), not the vice that brought about the
neglect.
J. S. Mill spends the rest of the chapter responding to objections to his maxim.
He notes the objection that he contradicts himself in granting societal
interference with youth because they are irrational but denying societal
interference with certain adults though they act irrationally. Mill first responds
by restating the claim that society ought to punish the harmful consequences of
the irrational conduct, but not the irrational conduct itself which is a personal
matter. Furthermore, he notes the societal obligation is not to ensure that each
individual is moral throughout adulthood. Rather, he states that, by educating
youth, society has the opportunity and duty to ensure that a generation, as a
whole, is generally moral.
Where some may object that there is justification for certain religious
prohibitions in a society dominated by that religion, he argues that members of
the majority ought make rules that they would accept should they have been the
minority. He states, "unless we are willing to adopt the logic of persecutors, and
say that we may persecute others because we are right, and that they must not
persecute us because they are wrong, we must beware of admitting a principle of
which we should resent as a gross injustice the application to ourselves." In
saying this, he references an earlier claim that morals and religion cannot be
treated in the same light as mathematics because morals and religion are vastly
more complex. Just as with living in a society which contains immoral people,
Mill points out that agents who find another's conduct depraved do not have to
socialise with the other, merely refrain from impeding their personal decisions.
While Mill generally opposes the religiously motivated societal interference, he
admits that it is conceivably permissible for religiously motivated laws to
prohibit the use of what no religion obligates. For example, a Muslim state could
feasibly prohibit pork. However, Mill still prefers a policy of society minding its
own business.
Applications
This last chapter applies the principles laid out in the previous sections. He
begins by summarising these principles:
“ The maxims are, first, that the individual is not accountable to society
for his actions, in so far as these concern the interests of no person but
himself. Advice, instruction, persuasion, and avoidance by other
people if thought necessary by them for their own good, are the only
measures by which society can justifiably express its dislike or
disapprobation of his conduct. Secondly, that for such actions as are
prejudicial to the interests of others, the individual is accountable, and
may be subjected either to social or to legal punishment, if society is
of opinion that the one or the other is requisite for its protection. ”
Economy
Mill first applies these principles to the economy. He concludes that free
markets are preferable to those controlled by governments. While it may seem,
because "trade is a social act," that the government ought intervene in the
economy, Mill argues that economies function best when left to their own
devices. Therefore, government intervention, though theoretically permissible,
would be counterproductive. Later, he attacks government-run economies as
"despotic." He believes that if the government ran the economy, then all people
would aspire to be part of a bureaucracy that had no incentive to further the
interests of any but itself.
Preventing harm
Next Mill investigates in what ways a person may try to prevent harm. He first
admits that a person should not wait for injury to happen, but ought try to
prevent it. Second, he states that agents must consider whether that which can
cause injury can cause injury exclusively. He gives the example of selling
poison. Poison can cause harm. However, he points out that poison can also be
used for good. Therefore, selling poison is permissible. Yet, due to the risk
entailed in selling poison or like products (e.g. alcohol), he sees no danger to
liberty to require warning labels on the product. Again, Mill applies his
principle. He considers the right course of action when an agent sees a person
about to cross a condemned bridge without being aware of the risk. Mill states
that because the agent presumably has interest in not crossing a dangerous
bridge (i.e. if he knew the facts concerned with crossing the bridge, he would
not desire to cross the bridge), it is permissible to forcibly stop the person from
crossing the bridge. He qualifies the assertion stating that, if the means are
available, it is better to warn the unaware person.
With regard to taxing to deter agents from buying dangerous products, he makes
a distinction. He states that to tax solely to deter purchases is impermissible
because prohibiting personal actions is impermissible and "[e]very increase of
cost is a prohibition, to those whose means do not come up to the augmented
price." However, because a government must tax to some extent in order to
survive, it may choose to take its taxes from what it deems most dangerous.
Mill expands upon his principle of punishing the consequences rather than the
personal action. He argues that a person who is empirically prone to act
violently (i.e. harm society) from drunkenness (i.e. a personal act) should be
uniquely restricted from the drinking. He further stipulates that repeat offenders
should be punished more than first time offenders.
Encouraging vice
Education
Mill believes that government run education is an evil because it would destroy
diversity of opinion for all people to be taught the curriculum developed by a
few. The less evil version of state run schooling, according to Mill, is that which
competes against other privately run schools. In contrast, Mill believes that
governments ought to require and fund private education. He states that they
should enforce mandatory education through minor fines and annual
standardised testing that tested only uncontroversial fact. He goes on to
emphasise the importance of a diverse education that teaches opposing views
(e.g. Kant and Locke). He concludes by stating that it is legitimate for states to
forbid marriages unless the couple can prove that they have "means of
supporting a family" through education and other basic necessities.
Conclusion
The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing
it; and a State which postpones the interests of their mental expansion and
elevation to a little more of administrative skill, or of that semblance of it which
practice gives, in the details of business; a State which dwarfs its men, in order
that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial
purposes—will find that with small men no great thing can really be
accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed
everything will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in
order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish.
Contradiction to utilitarianism
“ If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person
were of contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in
silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be
justified in silencing mankind. ”
While David Brink concedes that Mill's apparently categorical appeal to rights
seems to contradict utilitarianism, he points out that Mill does not believe rights
are truly categorical because Mill opposes unrestrained liberty (e.g. offensive
public exposure).
Narrow focus
Some thinkers have criticised Mill's writing for its apparent narrow or unclear
focus in several areas. Mill makes clear that he only considers adults in his
writing, failing to account for how irrational members of society, such as
children, ought to be treated. Yet Mill's theory relies upon the proper upbringing
of children. Plank has asserted that Mill fails to account for physical harm,
solely concerning himself with spiritual wellbeing. He also argues that, while
much of Mill's theory depends upon a distinction between private and public
harm, Mill seems not to have provided a clear focus on or distinction between
the private and public realms.
Religious criticism
Nigel Warburton states that though Mill encourages religious tolerance, because
he does not speak from the perspective of a specific religion, some claim that he
does not account for what certain religious beliefs would entail when governing
a society. Some religions believe that they have a God given duty to enforce
religious norms. For them, it seems impossible for their religious beliefs to be
wrong, i.e. the beliefs are infallible. Therefore, according to Warburton, Mill's
principle of total freedom of speech may not apply.
Conception of harm
Warburton notes that some people argue that morality is the basis of society, and
that society is the basis of individual happiness. Therefore, if morality is
undermined, so is individual happiness. Hence, since Mill claims that
governments ought to protect the individual's ability to seek happiness,
governments ought to intervene in the private realm to enforce moral codes.
Mill is clear that his concern for liberty does not extend to all individuals and all
societies. He states that "Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in
dealing with barbarians". Contemporary philosophers Domenico Losurdoand
David Theo Goldberg have strongly criticised Mill as a racist and an apologist
for colonialism. However, during his term as a Member of Parliament, he
chaired the extraparliamentary Jamaica Committee, which for two years
unsuccessfully sought the prosecution of Governor Eyre and his subordinates for
military violence against Jamaican Blacks.