Individual Freedom and Societal Limits: John Stuart Mill’s View
John Stuart Mill on Individual Freedom and Societal Limits
“The acts of an individual may be harmful to others or, if they ignore their welfare without violating any of their constituted rights, deserve due consideration. In this case, the offender may be punished by opinion, but not by law. As soon as one aspect of a person’s behavior affects the interests of others in a prejudicial manner, society has jurisdiction, and it becomes subject to discussion whether the intervention of society is favorable or unfavorable to the common good. But there is no ground for raising this issue when a person’s behavior affects only their own interests or need not affect the interests of others unless they wish (assuming that all people affected are of age and have a normal degree of understanding). In all these cases, the individual should enjoy perfect freedom, both legal and social, to implement the act and abide by the consequences.” – MILL, On Liberty IV.
Main Ideas in Mill’s Text
In this fragment, Mill defends his concept of freedom as an activity that allows everyone to act with full autonomy as long as it does not harm the interests of others. This means that those acts that affect only the individual who commits them are not legally punishable, though they may be poorly viewed by the public. The individual has, in these cases, the most perfect freedom and is responsible for their actions.
Contextualizing Mill’s Thoughts
In this text, J.S. Mill (1806-1873) defends the private sphere that every individual possesses. Freedom is the right to decide individually on one’s own choices in life without being interfered with or limited by law if one’s choice does not interfere in the privacy of others. Hence, choice is the freedom of personal autonomy. The law regulates the public sphere and social relationships on a personal level, but that of belief (moral, aesthetic, etc.) has no jurisprudence. Everyone has the right to do with their life what seems most useful to be happy, without being hindered or restricted in the legal field as a result of their personal choice.
This is a central tenet of political liberalism and is derived from the confidence in the autonomy of reason that the Enlightenment had argued. Mill followed in the footsteps of the father of utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). Bentham reformulated utilitarianism, contributing a qualitative component (events not only have the amount of pleasure they give us but also quality). Personal freedom is a qualitative good because it allows for a more diverse and creative life rather than submission to a tradition that often does nothing but perpetuate discrimination or prejudice.
As a contemporary of the Industrial Revolution, Mill believed in progress, but development and growth cannot be limited to technology; we must also progress in freedom and human diversity. Therefore, this text refers to the inviolable private sphere of the individual, their conduct towards others, and freedom as a natural condition of man. It also refers, in short, to respecting the limits of political power over the acts of individuals that belong only to their private sphere or that do not adversely affect others.
Feelings and passions (including the right to “love as you want,” which Bentham had argued, being the first philosopher to claim the rights of homosexuals in his time) must remain outside the public sphere in that legislation does not affect public interests. The fragment under consideration is precisely an example of the importance of the concept of freedom in this author, from which he bases all his ethical and political theory.