MILL’S “ON LIBERTY”

DUDIKI YAMINI

MA POLITICAL SCIENCE

18399011

Introduction
Do we really have liberty in this era of globalization and technology? Most of the countries in
the world have opted for democratic form of government and it is well known to everyone that
freedom is the essential requirement of democracy. But in some countries in which government
has major say even in dictating its people what not to eat then where the individual’s right to
make choice? In many societies even today the individual’s conduct, life choices like marriage,
profession are monitored by the social collective. The opinions that we are holding, the
preferences we have and the goals that we wanted to achieve are the ideas of ourselves or infused
in us by the state through various means? Article 19 in Universal Declaration of Human Rights
provided the right to have freedom of opinion, expression, seek the information without any kind
of restraints. In practice, only political leaders are having this right and they can express
whatever they feel against anyone. Does the common man have courage to do that? People rather
choose not to have any opinion than to have it and to fight to express it. The tendency of being
on safe side (not to criticize) has been increasing among people and at the same time they keep to
criticize fellow beings for not standing up against the practices of unjust. How far the technology
and the artificial intelligence will be succeeded in safeguarding our personal information from
the totalitarian nature of the state?

On Liberty is one of the most widely read book of J.S Mill. The book was published in the
year 1859. He is considered as one of the major liberal philosopher in the western tradition. He
has carved a philosophical base to the liberal tradition itself and distanced himself from the
American views of what is mean to be a liberal. He supported Keynes model “Welfare State”
which defended the interference of the state in market to provide basic necessities like health and
education to the general masses. He believed that it is only through these interventionist policies
people can come out of ignorance and aim for the fullest development of the personality. He is
not a just a liberal in theories but also in practicing them to the then social circumstances. He is
the first in UK to launch a campaign to provide voting rights for women and equality with men.
He argued for the freedom of expression, freedom from censorship and condemned the intrusion
into private lives of individuals.

Why is it named as On Liberty and why not On Freedom?

Though the words are used as synonyms but are quite different from each other. Liberty is what
the state grants and have to act within the particular framework. It is always relative which
means that we do not have the right to infringe the freedom of other. Freedom is what the
individual get by birth. The best example is that an individual can have the freedom to murder,
but he does not have the liberty to murder. It is the freedom which helps a person to grow as
fullest as possible and liberty helps him to lead life in society under legal setting.

On Liberty is based on the idea that society evolved from lower to higher level of stages and
led to the emergency of the government which granted liberty to its people. In this book, he laid
importance to the richest diversity of the human development and regarded it is method to reach
the ultimate truth.

He defines civil or social liberty as the limited exercise of power by the state over individuals.
Legitimate exercise of power was hardly ever discussed till then and recognized it as the vital
question for the future. This is not a new issue because it separated the mankind from the
remotest ages to the progressed civilians that humanity have now entered and it requires a
distinct treatment for the new conditions. The struggle between liberty and authority is the most
familiar portions of history particularly in Greece, Rome and England. But it was between some
classes of subjects and the government unlike the present day. The word was meant as the
protection in opposition to the tyranny. Most of the rulers except in Greece were in antagonistic
attitude towards the people. The power was regarded necessary to protect the people from
external forces at the same time it became a threat against the subjects. Then they have decided
to check the level of powers of the ruler and it is what they meant by liberty. The limitation was
set in two ways. First, recognition of some political rights to the people, rebellion was justified
against the infringement of the duty to protect them. Second, establishment of constitutional
checks which means the consent of the community was made necessary for some important acts
of the government. The demand that the officers of the state should work at the pleasure of the
people came up which means that the people have the power to remove the officials from the
office. The elected and temporary appointment of the rulers acted as a weapon against the abuse
of power. The periodical setting made the rulers to get identified with the people and have to
fulfill the interests and decisions of people in the nation. The idea still predominates not only in
Britain but also the outside of it. But the phrases “self- government”, “power of the people over
themselves” is far from the true intention of the setting.

“The “people” who exercise the power are not always the same people with those over whom it
is exercised; and the “self-government” spoken of is not the government of each by himself, but
of each by all the rest.”1

The will of the people represents only the will of the majority which suppresses the will of the
minority. So the action is needed against the abuse of the power. Tyranny of the majority in
society can be exercised in many ways like deep penetration into the personal life and enslaving
1
(J.S.Mill)
the soul. Therefore the protection against the tyranny of the state is just not enough; there needs a
protection against the tyranny of the opinions and the conduct imposed by the society. There is
the necessity to limit legitimate interference of the collective opinion for the good of human
beings. But it is hard to detect where to put the limit and how to make adjustment between
individual freedom and social control. The limit changes from time to time and nation to nation
due to the circumstances and the prevailing customs. Custom plays a dominant role in many
societies. Though there are some good reasons behind them, it is not correct to impose them on
others without any relevance and reason of the custom. The opinion of a person is affected by all
the factors like reason, superstitions, ideas, envy and social affections prevailed around him. It is
not wrong to say that all these social customs and morality emanates from the superior class. It
reflects the fact that the lower sections have got any value for their say; but has to follow the path
shown by others without any objection. It was infused in them that any kind of objection to the
social conduct is like questioning their god. How can a group of people decide what the likes and
dislikes of the society? Blindly following them suppress the individuality of individuals and the
demand for the heretical nature increased to save the freedom of mankind. There were incidents
of the involvement of the church in the every aspect of people, suppressed both the state and
individual, took away their freedom of religion and right to criticize the practices of it. Though
the majority has the power to alter the policies of the government, they do not realize it and
simply habituated to get controlled by them in illegitimate manner. There is no recognized
principle of limiting the government’s intervention. People tend to expresses their popular
opinion according to their preferences; some people like to represent their problems and some
would like to tolerate them. In these preferences there is some kind of general direction by the
society and it reduces the level of accountability among people to represent their opinion or
difficulties. The control exercised by the society can either be compulsion in the form of physical
in the way of legal penalties or by the control in the moral direction. It is not correct to ignore the
societal or state intervention in individual’s life. The purpose of the legitimate intervention is to
protect the person from harming others or himself and that compellation should make him or
others happier.

“The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which
concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right,
absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”2

The doctrine that individual is the master over himself is applicable only to the mature/civilized
human beings. It is not applicable to children and mentally unsound people and they require
others to take care of them against the threat by themselves or from external sources.

Despotism was justified as the legitimate form of government to control barbarians for their
improvement. But it was completely rejected the control of state on civilized mankind. The
principle of utility applies in both situations of state’s intervention in particular cases and the

2
(J.S.Mill)
own choices of people without any kind of persuasion by others. It is nothing wrong to call the
legitimate coercion of the state (for the benefit of others) as the duty of the individual like
protecting the defenseless against ill usage of anything. So a person can do harm to others not
just by his actions but also with his inaction and he must be accountable for the loss. As a
civilized being, he needs to act as the judge for his inactions and think how he should have acted
in a better way in particular situation. The liberty of individuals consists of

 An inward domain of consciousness which demands the liberty of thought, opinion,

expression
 Liberty of taste and pursuits like goal setting in life
 Liberty of an individual in within limits and without infringing other’s rights

Though these liberties are purely affects himself but they have an indirect impact on others
around him through the behavior, opinions and consent. Whatever may be the form of the
government absolute freedom is not possible and the best way is pursuing our own good without
depriving others. So each is the guardian of his own physical, mental and spiritual health. The
best example for various ways of intrusion in personal life is how they are being governed by the
Puritanism spiritually and by department of hierarchy in religion.

“Apart from the peculiar tenets of individual thinkers, there is also in the world at large an
increasing inclination to stretch unduly the powers of society over the individual, both by the
force of opinion and even by that of legislation; and as the tendency of all the changes taking
place in the world is to strengthen society, and diminish the power of the individual, this
encroachment is not one of the evils which tend spontaneously to disappear, but, on the contrary,
to grow more and more formidable. The disposition of mankind, whether as rulers or as fellow-
citizens, to impose their own opinions and inclinations as a rule of conduct on others, is so
energetically supported by some of the best and by some of the worst feelings incident to human
nature, that it is hardly ever kept under restraint by anything but want of power; and as the
power is not declining, but growing, unless a strong barrier of moral conviction can be raised
against the mischief, we must expect, in the present circumstances of the world, to see it
increase.”3

Liberty of press is no longer regarded as the protector against the tyranny of the government.
The reason is that the coercion exercised by the organs of the government like legislature and the
executive was supported by the people indirectly. It is completely unfair to impose any kind of
coercion by people themselves or by the government. It is not always proper to act according to
the public opinion because there are chances that all of them might be trying to suppress some
truth or opinion/ right of others.

3
(J.S.Mill)
“The best government has no more title to it than the worst.”4

An opinion is a personal possession of an individual which has greater value only to the owner.
Any kind of obstruction to it can be regarded as a private injury. Silencing the expression of any
opinion simply means looting the entire human race not of the present generation but also the
future generation. It is a threat not to the people who hold it but to them who disagree with it. If
the opinion is right, they will miss the chance to correct their’s: but if it is wrong, they would be
missing the clearer perception or higher intensity of the truth. It is not infallible to suppress an
opinion by anyone because they cannot decide the query for the entire mankind. All silencing the
discussion on the assumption of absolute certainty of their certainty that the opinion is not true is
completely fallible. The correctable nature of human beings helps them and the society to reach
higher level of truth and that nature should prevail in everyone. The opinion of absolute prince
might not be right always; so every decision should be open to have fair discussion. Any opinion
which is held might be right or wrong; “Because it may be used erroneously, are men to be told
that they ought not to use it at all? To prohibit what they think pernicious, is not claiming
exemption from error, but fulfilling the duty incumbent on them, although fallible, of acting on
their conscientious conviction. If we were never to act on our opinions, because those opinions
may be wrong, we should leave all our interests uncared for, and all our duties unperformed.”5

It is the duty of the government and individuals to form truest opinion because it affects
everybody in the state and should not impose them on others unless they are very sure of it’s
infallibility. Though the absolute certainty is not possible, it does not mean to stop aiming for it.
As civilized human beings, it is indispensible to make the opinion as best as possible according
to the need and time of the circumstances. There were instances in history where erroneous
opinions were approved which are inapplicable now. It shows that truth always evolves through
the period and the questioning nature. The errors can be rectified through discussions and
experiences. An opinion should be kept for open discussion and it should overcome each and
every critical evaluation from diverse point of views. It does not mean that we should rest on by
looking at the progress achieved in reaching the truth; but should pose an open invitation to
criticize it to the entire world. If there is any better truth, it will found when the beings are
capable enough to reach it. Meanwhile, it the need to rely on the achieved truth and it is the sole
of attaining the certainty by a fallible being.

There were instances in history where the law had rooted out some of the best men and their
doctrines. Socrates, who was accused as the “corruptor of the youth” and an atheist was put to
death for his quest of reason and the incident of Calvary shows us how the world’s wisest man
and the almighty were made to suffer by the ignorance of the majority and the government.
There were many incidents where the truth was persecuted so many times. Though they have
failed to suppress it but succeeded in throwing it back for centuries. The example for it is the

4
(J.S.Mill)
5
(J.S.Mill)
Reformation movement was started at least twenty times before Martin Luther. The truth that
revealed is that the truth cannot be persecuted by persecution.

It is true that the condition of heretics in saying the truth has improved but not yet completely
free from the legal punishment. The existence of the practice of the oath taking on a religious
scripture while giving evidence reflects the imposition of the religious conduct in delivering the
justice. It is showing the negative aspect on atheists that they are liars and those who believe in
the scriptures are prevented from lying only by the fear of hell not by the fear of doing injustice
to others. Permanent intolerance towards the feelings and opinions of the people left no security
in their mind to have the idea of having an opinion or thoughts. The level of mental freedom of
individuals is comparatively better in England than in other countries. The ways of exercising
restrictions on men who have an opinion might be put under imprisonment, excluded from
earning bread etc. those who have already secured their bread and seeks no favors from the men
in the position, others have nothing to fear to express their opinion.

The price paid for the intolerance is the sacrifice of moral courage and deactivated the inquiring
intellectuals from being energetic. The continual practice of not thinking narrowed the thoughts
and the result was the static progress of the mankind. But nothing is constant in this nature that
the truth finds its way to progress. What the Europe is today is the result of the impulse given by
the Reformation movement, Germany during the Goethian and Fichtean movements. The power
of the reason is indispensible in order to turn a strong opinion into the accepted truth of the
majority.

“Mankind ought to have a rational assurance that all objections have been satisfactorily
answered; and how are they to be answered if that which requires to be answered is not spoken?
or how can the answer be known to be satisfactory, if the objectors have no opportunity of
showing that it is unsatisfactory ?”6

There is a vital and ethical meaning in each and every moral and religious doctrine and it known
to those who propounded them and their direct disciples. Though the next generations inherited
them from their formers but did not adopt them and have no idea behind the practices. The
reason why they were made a practices by the originators was that the presumption that people
would question them before practicing but the questioning nature was put to end by the people
because of their’s ignorance of not knowing. All the ethical and religious doctrines possess no
hold in the minds of ordinary believers. People have habituated to respect the sound of them, but
have no feelings. Whenever a conduct is told to do, they look around for others mostly religious
preachers to guide them. The error is that the tendency of the people to leave off thinking when a
thing is not doubtful. The dialectical method is adoptable while achieving the truth. It is
essentially a discussion about a question of life or philosophy and the main thing is not getting

6
(J.S.Mill)
attached to any particular opinion until receiving the final truth. It includes convincing others
with the valid argument and proceeding along with the meaning and evidence.

The present education instructs the content from the books and the students contend themselves
with the cram even without knowing the two sides of the topic. It is very far from the actual
accomplishment of an individual should have to do. It has become a trend to stick to negative
logic of searching for weakness of every theory without trying to establish any positive truths.
All the Conflictual doctrines often share truth instead of being one false and one true. All the
popular opinions are often true but not completely true. So truth is always there in everything but
differs in quantity and always the heretical questions contain some neglected part of the truth.
Through the diversity of the human mankind only it is possible to analyze all sides of the truth.
The mankind owes the debt to the preexisting morality and to its early teachers. It is not the error
of violent conflict between the parts of truth but the suppression of a half of it.

Actions are not as free as holding opinions. Liberty of an individual’s actions needed to be
controlled in order to protect others from his actions. As fallible beings, their truths are one
sided, believers of unity of opinion and mostly reached half truths. The principles applicable for
their mode of action includes the recognition that diversity is not evil, listening to the opposite
view and agreeing to the point of the existence of truth in all sides. As they are imperfect, there
should be different modes of livings, holding opinions and free scope for adopting various
varieties of character concerning only himself. It is wrong to fix one uniform code of conduct for
diverse people.

It examines the legitimate intervention of the society in curtailing the liberty of individuals for
the sake of the protection for others. He rejected the social contract and argued that those who
seek protection from the state should render some benefit in return to it. It means that every
person has the responsibility to defend the society and others. Society exercises the jurisdiction
to decide whether the conduct of a person affects others or not. But the intervention of the state is
purely restricted if the conduct of a person affects no one. It is the duty of the education to
inculcate both the self regarding and social regarding virtues among the public. If a person
deteriorates his physical or mental faculties, it not only affects them but also the people depended
on him. The intervention of the state while protecting others should do well for them. If a person
who unable to pay the debts due to his lavishness, he will be punished for not being lavish but for
not paying back to the creditors and his breach of duty to take care of family members. It is the
duty of the state to make children to be rational in order to be responsible towards others after
getting certain age. It is the fault of the state if the people failed to behave rationally.
If the action of an individual does not affect other, he need not to be accountable for anyone. if
his actions affects or does any harm to others, it is the responsibility of the state to punish them.
He regarded that competition cannot be called as harm for others and the intervention of the state
was justified in protecting the workers and preventing the fraud but not banning the products. For
example banning poison because some might misuse it is not justified because there will be other
legitimate usage of the product. So the precautions need to be taken by the state only to promote
the appropriate use of the commodity. He explores about the education given to the children and
the measures taken by the state to control the population by limiting procreation. He suggests
three ways of proper limits to the government’s action. First, the action of the private sector is
preferable to the government’s action in industries, so there should be a limit to the intervention
of the state in the particular field. Second, individual’s action is preferable to the actions of the
officials even if they people do mistakes. It acts as a chance to correct themselves. Third,
increase in the power of the government makes the people more dependent on the government.
So it should be limited.

Criticism
 How is it possible to identity and differentiate civilized and rudimentary forms of state?
Mill did not provide any criteria to do that.
 The demarcation of self and other regarding actions is not valid. There is no one action of
an individual which does not have any impact on other either in direct or indirect manner.
 The limitations posed to control the power of the government are very limited. If diverse
opinions and way of living is justifiable, then why to impose Uniform Civil Code for
everyone?
 He opposed the tyranny of the majority which means criticizing the basic principle of
democracy. Did not suggest any measures of other form of government where
everybody’s opinion gets a value.
 Neglected the importance of how an individual needs to be saved from getting affected
by the societal values or opinions. Did not emphasize anything about the ways to achieve
individuality which means separating the society and its expectations from people.
 If a person can do harm to others by his inaction, they there is no punishment for
inaction?
 If the society is intruding in people’s mind, how far proper justice is delivered in judicial
system? There are high chances of officials behaving on basis of accepted feelings,
opinions, and prejudices.
Conclusion
It is not only the state which tries to dominate individuals but also all the evolutionary phases of
it like family, community and all its institutions. It is wrong to assume that absolute freedom
does not exist at all. Everyone takes birth along with absolute rights of freedom but it is curtailed
slowly with his development. The first threat posed to the freedom of every individual is in the
phase when he starts to observe the society, responding to the people and learning from those
who are completely under chains of the state. It might not be wrong to say that the danger is with
learning from others in the society without giving any chance of questioning. Each and every
individual is capable of contributing something to the truth if he is allowed to question.

Every individual gets liberty through different sources and phases of life

1. Absolute freedom (temporary)

2. Limited liberty under the supervision of family and society

3. Limited liberty supervised by the constitution

4. Absolute freedom (permanent) supervised by the reason of the individual

In political philosophy, the institution of state was strengthened during the period of Greeks and
was declined by various revolutions in different regions against the despotic powers of the state
and government. Again in the era of globalised and technology, the control of the state on
individuals and their minds is increasing through different ways like social media and artificial
intelligence. It is not the information which we get from unlimited sources, but the quest for
truth and thoughts should be encouraged among students in the present education system. The
state should be empowered with reason in order to protect the liberties of individuals directly and
indirectly. The debate between the individual and state should be put to end by adopting
legitimate discussion. It is the high time that every person should act as a judge in assessing his
preferences, ideas, feelings, prejudices that how far all those things are his own against the
accepted things from others or the society.