John Stuart Mill on Liberty: Thought, Individuality, and Society
John Stuart Mill’s Concept of Social and Civil Freedom
The study is not of free will but of social and civil freedom, namely, the nature and limits of power that society can legitimately exercise over the individual. Mill denounces the dangers of a democratic society: public opinion and the tyranny of the majority. Social relations should be governed by a simple principle that justifies the intervention of society in their own freedom of protection and prevents harm to others. Each person is sovereign unless affecting the integrity of others. Otherwise, the state can interfere with freedom to defend its citizens; in other cases, it shall promote and defend it. Mill is especially interested in three kinds of freedom:
- Freedom of conscience, of thinking and feeling (internal freedom). This freedom is related to freedom of expression.
- Unimpeded freedom of action, taking into account the consequences of our actions if they do not harm others (negative freedom).
- Freedom of association without manipulations or deceptions.
These past two kinds of freedom should be understood as external freedom.
Freedom of Thought and Discussion
Mill is against coercion by the government or the people (public opinion) on thought and expression. This should not prevent the expression of an opinion (tolerance) unless it leads to harm in practice. And whether it is harmful or not should be discussed beforehand. The duty of the government and individuals is to form opinions as true as possible without imposing them unless you are absolutely sure they are true. However, Mill notes that opinions cannot be imposed without discussing them first. For the intellectual welfare of humanity, freedom of opinion and freedom to express it are necessary, says Mill, for four reasons:
- An opinion, even if silenced, can be true.
- Even if an opinion is wrong, it may contain a part of the truth.
- Even if the review was all true, unless discussed, it can be considered false because of the prejudices expressed by society.
- An opinion, if not discussed, can weaken and be lost.
Mill accepts the freedom of opinion and expression of those opinions as possible to discuss, but not those that do not support any possible criticism or discussion. One cannot be tolerant of the intolerant.
Individuality as an Element of Well-Being
Freedom is limited as it can be detrimental to another. But in other cases, individuality must be asserted, as well as a diversity of opinions on everything that concerns not only others. It is not important what men do but the kind of men who do it. Individuality should be promoted in thought and expression of opinions. Human nature is not a machine and is always threatened by the danger of lack of impulses and personal preferences. Mill calls for the need for originality against the despotism of custom. For this reason, we must improve political, moral, and educational systems to enable the individual to grow (this does not mean selfishness but having one’s own ideas). It is good for society and progress that not everyone thinks the same.
In summary: Mill’s defense is that everyone should think and express themselves freely without any hindrance, provided their thoughts and actions do not harm others. For example, in the case of an individual who uses drugs, what can be done is to warn them of the dangers of their consumption, but it cannot be legally forbidden to do so if they want to. He calls this the “principle of individual freedom” and identifies a wide scope of actions that the individual “has every right” to do what they want (or do not want, which would be the same) and that society “has no right” to limit it. For example, society has no right to ban alcohol for private use.
The second might be called the “principle of the specific circumstances of the case.” It determines, in circumstances in which society has a right to coerce, specific fields of activity where it is better not to act. It is better achieved, so typical of this type of activity, leaving individuals free rather than commanding them. This would, for example, be the field of economics: the state could act on it, and perhaps in some cases it has to do so, but if it does, things are better.
The Principle of Individual Liberty
The principle of individual liberty concerns actions that have harmful effects on others. On this type of action, the freedom of individuals must be absolute. As in the first pages of On Liberty: “To coerce an individual for his own good, either physical or moral, does not provide sufficient justification (…) There may be reasons to reproach him, reasoning there, persuade him or beg him, but not to coerce it, or to hurt.” The only legitimate reason that a community may have to use force against one of its members is to prevent hurt to other people, but in this case, the problem belongs to the legal field. Individual freedom increases the happiness of individuals, allows a more pleasant experience of life, and prevents the public and/or the state from interfering in the private lives of individuals.
The principle of individual freedom, however, only applies to companies that Mill called “civilized,” that is, taken as a criterion that free discussion is a means of improvement. It does not apply, then, to the stages of society in which self-talk only inflames passions and leads to chaos or civil war.
The Principle of Freedom in the Specific Circumstances of the Case
The principle of freedom in the specific circumstances of the case concerns the jurisdiction of society, which is entitled to intervene and punish when things do not work. An example will perhaps make it clearer: how parents educate or feed their children is something, but reached a certain extreme, it is not a particular problem of parents, but the state can intervene when it goes beyond individual freedom and enters the jurisdiction of society. This is what Mill calls “the expediencies of the particular case.” Thus, for example, it violates freedom that governments establish a health check on food. This distinction is particularly relevant today in the debate between liberalism and neoliberalism.
For Mill, trade is a social activity. Therefore, from the standpoint of principle, it belongs to the field that can be regulated. If commercial activity, as a rule, should be “free,” it does not mean it is a natural right, but that it depends on specific circumstances. In the context of a minimal state, which effectively guarantees market access for all on equal terms, the state should not intervene in economic activity. In certain circumstances, however, the State may intervene in the economy to preserve the free play of competition and consumer rights: the State has the duty to do everything that is likely to increase the general happiness.
We must distinguish between what we want because it makes us happy and what we want to become happy. Virtues must be considered as part of what we call happiness; they are the path to happiness because we can reach a higher level of understanding of happiness through knowledge and experience.