John Stuart Mill On 

Liberty

By P. Simbajon

“A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case
he is justly accountable to them for the injury.”                                                                ― John
Stuart Mill

            Politics is never my cup of tea. Never was, never will be. For some reason, I find it
challenging to discuss any matters related to the topic. It may be due to the probability that I’m
biased on what my beliefs is towards Politics because I have this mantra that “if the means is
righteous and beneficial for me and the society, then the government is efficient and effective in
doing its job.” Simply put it that if the government is doing its job very well then it is doing what
they are paid to do. On the other hand, I always encounter this Latin phrase “Vox Populi, Vox
Dei(the voice of the people is the voice of God), inscribed in our local Capitol buildings on my
way home. This particular statement makes me pause, think and analyze for a while then made
me ask this question, “is it the government that makes the people or is it the people making the
government?”  Quite a realization moment for me since what the majority sees and believes
nowadays is quite a confusing mix up. An existential dilemma that requires a thorough analysis
for it to be understood and the questions to be answered in a firm, truthful and substantial
manner.

            To guide me in this political journey in clearing the air out for the question, I will be using
the philosophical influence and political aspect of John Stuart Mill and his respective book, On
Liberty. Before we proceed to the main event, let me introduce first the philosopher
involved. John Stuart Mill (born May 20, 1806—died May 8, 1873), was a British philosopher,
political economist, civil servant and exponent of Utilitarianism. He is considered as one of the
most influential and the most intellectual figures in the 19thcentury. His contributions involve
certain ideas for economics, epistemology, logic, psychology and philosophy. Though, his
lasting influence has been through classical liberalism and his conception of liberty justifying the
freedom of the individual in opposition to unlimited state and social control. Having known the
philosopher behind the concept, let’s now discuss in details of the ideologies so that we can
answer the question posted above. 

            Law is placed to establish peace and order in the society. Without it, the society that we
are living in will be in chaos and everything that we worked hard for would turn into dust. Law is
our guiding principle in doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong. Having that idea, would it
be wise if we approach it subjectively or would it be advantageous if it is objective? First off, I
don’t necessarily agree to the adage that says, an individual can’t move on to the future if
he/she is still chained to the past. What I believe in is that, an individual can move on to the
future by learning the mistakes of the past. The statements mentioned implies that what we
have created in the present and in the future is a by product of what we have thought and
imagined in the past. Of course, by continuous experimentation, we get to avoid the errors in the
process thus perfecting the material of our own thinking. Having this line of thinking, can we can
safely presume that the laws that we have now is a product of what we had experienced before.
I can say that it is a collated kind of individual experiences that makes up what we call a societal
law. What is good for one should be good to many.

            A flourished society ensures that law is established to maintain harmony and stability for
its constituents. Societies evolved from time to time and so does the rules that we have to
follow. For obvious reasons, majority of the old laws may or may not be applicable to the
evolved societies nowadays. The old laws become obsolete wherein there is no meaning and
essence in its application. These laws need to be modified and changed depending on what or
when the situation calls for it. By having said that, it is imperative that the rules that we follow
should be utilized for the greater good of all. If it doesn’t then what good is that law for in the first
place. The question posed by Mill is that, with the evolution of rules in our society, what is the
nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the
individual?

            By the word itself “power”, it is defined as the ability to do something or act in a particular
way, especially as a faculty or quality. In addition, it is the capacity or ability to direct or influence
the behavior of others or the course of events. This simply gives us an idea that power itself is
something that we should never play with especially if we don’t know how to use it. Wielding
such power will either bring prosperity to the region or if it is mismanaged, then it would cause
destruction and chaos. Majority of the societies now have well grounded, firm and established
laws that is guiding their respective regions. We can see that through the progress and
development of its workforce, income, infrastructures and international relations. Is it really how
the things are supposedly be measured, or it should be, power entails good governance which
produces happy and contented constituents working to make the region be developed and
transformed into a 1stworld country? Now that is quite a challenge so to say.

            To answer the questions posed on the statements above, it is imperative that we have to
understand the historical approach on how to deal with Mill’s On Liberty. As mentioned,
societies evolved from time to time based on the different circumstances of time. One thing I
noticed about Mills’ writing of On Liberty is that, he started out pointing the distinction between
the old and the new threats to liberty. The old threat is identified in traditional societies wherein it
is ruled by one (monarchy) or a few (aristocracy) and the worry in this threat is if the rulers are
politically unaccountable to the governed, they will rule in their own interests, rather than the
interests of the governed. The kind of threat wherein the seat of power thinks selfishly of
themselves rather that what their constituents will gain. On the other hand, the new threat to
liberty is running in the shadow of what we call democracy. The tyranny, not of the one or the
few, but of the majority. The kind of threat that normally instigates, initializes and starts people
power rebellion. This implies that society can tyrannize without using any political means. Public
opinion can be more stifling to individuality and dissent than any law could be. With the new
threat, I would suggest that there should be protection for people against the prevailing public
opinions and the tendency of the society to impose its values and interest on others.

            Having mentioned the threat to liberty, Mill emphasized on “one very simple principle” of
liberalism. And to quote “…as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the
individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used to be physical force in
the form of legal penalties or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is that the sole
end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of
action of any of their number is self-protection. 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.” 

            With the ideologies laid down for society, law, power and development, we can now
clearly state the it is the individual who directs the course of time and action. The individual
(he/she) is the one responsible enough to hold power, observe, enact and implement the law in
order for development to push through. Will this realization be enough in having a firm and
substantial answers to the questions posed above? I don’t think so, since we are still missing
quite a few items for this to stand ground. Let’s talk about “Liberty” now. Liberty is defined as the
state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way
of life, behavior, or political views. Philosophically, this means that it is a person’s freedom from
control by fate or necessity. On Mills’ account though, he defines it as “the nature and limits of
the power of which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual.” It is worth
noting as well that liberty is one of the leading essential of well- being and we as individuals
must take positive steps for ensure that our respective liberty is not destroyed.

            On Liberty established the notion of power and liberty quite clearly. Although there is
quite a contention on its ideas wherein, I asked myself this question, who exercises power over
the individual?Though it is not a difficult question to answer but I was amazed to a fact that the
answer is not only limited to one but there are two answers to the said question. First answer
will be that of the “government”. The established/ ruling government dictates the mandates that
they find fit for the society to flourish. This answer evolved and progressed since there was a
point where men wanted their leaders to be their servants and reflect their interest and will. It
was thought that it was not necessary to limit this new kind of power since the government is
accountable to the people. It was that it consciously grew its realization that the government is
run by people with the power to be exercised over those without power. 

The second answer is the “customs, beliefs, opinions and attitudes” accepted by the majority
(tyranny of the majority). This particular majority is the primary manufacturer of conformity.
Simply put it that whatever everybody wants is what the individual should follow. Mill believes in
the ethic of utilitarianism in that the state and individuals ought to be judged by their ability and
action to promote “the greatest happiness for the greatest number” of people. Attaining the
utmost social good involves forfeiting certain individuals and sacrificing their happiness because
happiness of a majority is greater than the happiness of a few individuals.  

Come to think of it, if someone or something will exercise their power over the individual then it
would mean that your actions will be limited to the wishes of those who are exercising their
power? Is it logical to think that our liberty and freedom will be in close quarters? Answering the
two questions means that we agree on the concepts of “government” and the “tyranny of the
majority”. What we need to take account of is the means on how these two concepts
destroy/limit freedom and liberty. First of is “government’, as mentioned above that they dictate
the mandates thus imposing the rules is their forte. This particular “government” maintains and
holds their power and legalized their force within a certain area to coerce certain individuals. If
ever the rules and dictates will not be met and followed, that individual faces certain punishment
of imprisonment or worse, death. The second, the “tyranny of the majority”, holds the fact that
whatever is good for everyone is also good for the individual. This is the part wherein the society
is following the mantra of “majority rules”.  Backing this mantra up, Mill suggested in his work
and I quote, “social tyranny is far more formidable that a combined or many kinds of political
oppression”. You may be wondering why the second concept is quite worst than the first one is
because of the fact that government punishes those who disobeyed the rule and that’s it. You
committed a crime thus you should be punished. However, on the second concept, if you failed
to follow the stigma of the society, then you will be an outcast and that crime of disobedience
will seep into to the deeper details of your life and a haunting kind of experience of soul
enslavement. 

We have just witnessed that there are two forms of certain power that limits our capabilities to
be free and liberated. Is it really what John Stuart Mill is telling us or is there something more
than what meets the eye? Well, for Mill, we as individuals shouldn’t think that we are completely
free to do anything our heart’s desire would be without any form of restraints. I think that if there
is a limitless liberty and freedom, one thing is certain that we are no more than beasts of the
wild. Mill thought of a society that respects the actions of the individual at the same time issue
an appropriate exercise of power where it sees it to be. According to the book On Liberty, there
are two limits of liberty, namely, Other-Regarding Actions and Self-Regarding Actions. Other-
Regarding action is the actions that directly affects other individuals which is considered as the
legitimate power of society over the individual. On the other hand, Self-Regarding Action is the
actions which directly affect the individual performing the action and this disallows the
government or society to act. In other words, the individual here is not accountable to society for
his actions as it doesn’t concern the majority but to him/her as an individual alone. Having these
two limitations, I can say that we are civilized in one way or another since we are not really
doing anything that we please right away. Even though it concerns the society, or it only
concerns us, we are still conscious of the fact that there are indeed limitations.

Since we are aware of the limitations that we have for liberty, another dilemma that we have to
look at is that, are we able to hold our freedom of opinion and expression? Mill propose that “the
freedom to entertain a wide variety of ideas and to express those ideas without fear of
punishment was not only crucial to the healthy development of individuals but also of society at
large.” Yes, there is a limitation either from the individual or from the society as a whole but the
freedom to give opinion and express it shouldn’t be as frightful and fearful task to do. Although I
don’t really agree to the sentiment that whatever I say, be it truthful or not, is a subjective task to
do. I mean, it should be filtered and supported by the truth before it even spreads out. That
would be the danger of too much tyranny of the majority. If the majority is giving wrong
information and their excuse is that ‘I’m free to say and express it’ then what good would society
be in the first place. This is the part where society should act in filtering what needs to be said
out loud since not everybody is capable of understanding what the message is all about.
Although, it is undeniable that there are really things that society is trying to suppress the truth
since it is not on their favor. This only shows the unfair relation of the society and the individual.
We are kept in the dark for the things that we ought to see in the light. 

Given that this is reality and it is happening wherever we go, how do we deal with our own
individuality? Are we just the passive kinds of individual or should we practice being more
proactive? For John Stuart Mill, what is essential to social progress is the cultivation of our
individuality. This means to say that before a society can stand, its building blocks should be
firm and truthful individuals. Thus, Mill conceptualized the Liberty of thought and Liberty of
action. These two concepts are combined to give rise to the freedom to cultivate one’s
individuality, the freedom to be unique and eccentric. Being unique and eccentric would mean
that there shouldn’t be any attachment to the government or even to the majority. There
shouldn’t be any reliance and attachments to those two if we want to understand, comprehend
and grow our very own individuality. To quote Mill, he said “As it is useful that while mankind is
imperfect there should be different opinions, so it is that there should be different experiments of
living… and that the worth of different modes of life should be proved practically, when anyone
thinks fit to try them. It is desirable, in short, that in things which do not primarily concern other
individuality should assert itself. Where not the person’s own character but the traditions or
customs of other people are the rule of conduct, there is wanting one of the principal ingredients
of human happiness, and quite the chief ingredient of individual and social progress.” This
growth and cultivation of one’s individuality will involve the practice of “non-conformity” since
there would be no attachment to anything alike and this would break certain customs in the way
of living and thinking. Quite selfish in a way but if the goal is growth then we should accept the
reality that that’s how things should done from this point forward.

As I’ve read the book, I’ve realized that there are power, liberty, limitation and individuality
existing in the society regardless if we like it or not in an individualistic sense or in a collective
way. The question now is “When can the government legitimately restrict your freedom by
imposing and enforcing laws?” John Stuart Mill holds the key to answering that. This involves
the last item that I really find interesting about his On Liberty. This concept is all about the
“Harm” principle. You may think of an idea that is really grandiose and out of this world, yet the
meaning is quite down to earth. This simply means that “If your action harms somebody else
then the government can legitimately step and try to stop you from doing it or punish you when
you do. But only if it harms someone else – if the only person you’re harming is yourself, then
the law should have nothing to say”. The meaning is quite literal and simple to be understood.
For example, drinking, if you drink yourself to death, that’s fine. That’s your call. But the moment
you get behind the wheel of a car, that’s when the law kicks in, because you will start
endangering somebody else. This tells us that the “harm” principle is the motivation, or the
driving force of each law being passed on and enacted to. And if it is indeed the force, then
there are some loopholes that will make the law quite sneaky and interesting to play with.

Having mentioned that it is the motivation of the law and together with that are the loopholes
that makes it sneaky, then we should take a look at the exceptions. There’s always an exception
to every rule and nothing is really absolute when it comes to the rules. Mill is talking about when
the government can step legitimately in and restrict your liberties and thinks that so long as
you’re only harming yourself the law should stay out of it. To quote Mill “It is perhaps hardly
necessary to say that this doctrine is meant to apply ‘only to human beings in the maturity of
their faculties.’ We are not speaking of children or of young persons below the age which the
law may fix as that of manhood or womanhood. Those who are still in a state to require being
taken care of by “other” must be protected against their actions as well as against external
injury. For the same reason, we may leave out of consideration those backward states of
society in which “the race itself may be considered as in its nonage.” What Mill is trying to tell us
is that for the exception to work, we have to make sure of what audience will the law be
impacted on since the law is not really applicable to the general public. This means that the
personal liberty and law enacted is only applicable to those persons who are matured in their
human faculties which connotes that it is for adults only or more specific “civilized” adults
according to Mill. 

            To sum it all up, John Stuart Mills On Liberty tells us how people can best understand
and learn about their own opinions and activities from accepting challenging and opposing
opinions from the government or from the society. One can only faithfully understand their
opinion by defending it. Also, On Liberty“the importance, to man and society, of a large variety
in types of character, and of giving full freedom to human nature to expand itself in innumerable
and conflicting directions.” Having time coercion is acceptable and that happens when a
person’s behavior harms other people–otherwise, society should treat diversity with respect.
Lastly, 1. the individual is not accountable to society for his actions insofar as these concerned
the interest of no person but himself which means that society has no legitimate function in
telling me what I can and can’t do as long as this just concerns me. 2. Society’s involvement for
such actions are prejudicial to the interest of others, the individual is accountable, and may be
subjected either to social or to legal punishment. This leads us to the realization that if I do
something to hurt somebody else then that could be a problem and that is something where
society legitimately can step in and say no you can’t do that, we are going to punish you. With
this ideal society of civilized adults, it is a sure way to secure our growth and development,
individually or collectively which will give an edge to create new markets comprised of free, able
and obedient citizens. This clearly means that it is the people who is making the government
and not the other way around.