Under what conditions is it legitimate to exercise social power to limit individual liberty?
An individual is not accountable to society for his or her actions as long as they concern only that individual.
The individual is accountable to society for actions that concern the interests of others and may be subjected to appropriate social or legal punishments.
Rule of the Powerful over the Weak
Mill begins by discussing the historical struggle between liberty of the people and authority of the rulers, where the rulers were understood to be an antagonistic and opposing force. Limits had to be set on the power of rulers.
Rights and Constitutional Constraints Imposed by the People
These limits were established by the people through recognition of certain rights. Rebellion and/or resistance was the price to be paid for infringement of these rights by the rulers. Note, however, that this approach was effective only if the rights could be imposed on the rulers. Eventually a principle of self-government became preferable, i.e. establishment of constitutional checks within a representative democracy.
Assumption: If people rule themselves, there is no possibility of tyranny. On this new model,
- People rule themselves collectively.
- Society takes on the role of ruler.
- Government of each by all the rest (not government of each by himself).
But if the will of the people is only the will of the majority or the most active within society, then there may arise a "tyranny of the majority".
Thus, limits on government are needed no matter what form government takes. But Mill also believes that some rules of conduct must be imposed on individuals in order for there to be a peaceful and satisfying life. He claims without these rules, our existence would not be valuable.
So what's the right balance between individual liberty and social control?
Rules of conduct can be imposed by law or by opinion. These rules vary from society to society. Although they generally appear self-evident to their adherents, they are founded on little more than the preference and opinion of those in power. Thus, Mill seeks an objective standard based on reason, not preferences [taste].
Historically the rights of the individual against the majority have been most forcefully defended within a religious framework. But here religious freedom is generally achieved through tolerance, indifference, or dogma-not on the acceptance of a common rational principle.
Mill's Liberty Principle: The only basis on which one can interfere with the liberty of another is self-protection, i.e. in cases where harm will be inflicted on others. Exceptions: children and "backward races".
Mill appeals to the Principle of Utility as a guide in determining the limits and application of the libety principle.
Central role of reason: mind and the higher pleasures.
Mill goes on to state the personal liberties necessary for a free society:
- thought, feeling and expression.
- taste and pursuit of the good (self-determination).
- assembly.
Every opinion must be allowed expression even if it appears to be false and is held by only one person. Mill considers the following cases and arguments.
1. An opinion is assumed to be false and the opposing view true.
In this case, the view that is assumed to be false may in fact be true. Recognition that we may be mistaken requires such an admission. To deny it would be to assume infallibility. Thus it would be wrong to suppress expression of an opinion even if it appears to be false. Errors in opinion are corrected by discussion and debate, not by experience alone. Experience alone is inadequate since it must be interpreted. This requires thought, analysis and discussion.
2. An opinion is assumed to be true and the opposing view false.
If this supposedly true opinion is not subjected to discussion and criticism, it will be held as dogma, not as truth. In order to gain knowledge, one must have reasons to support one's beliefs. Understanding entails investigating "the grounds of one's own opinions". Without discussion, very little of substance is gained beyond the recollection of a few statements or ideas. Beyond shallow phrases, little is retained.
3. Each of two opposing opinions contain some but not all the truth.
This is the most common case. "It is only by the collision of adverse opinions" that the whole truth is likely to be revealed.
Appeal to "personal impulses and preferences":
Diverse lifestyles are a social good. Just as we are not infallible in our opinions, so we are not infallible in our manner of pursuing the good.
It is not only important what you do but how you do it. Slavish imitation is dehumanizing. One must think and act independently and critically in order to build character and substance as a human being. Such an approach to living engages all the faculties: observation, reasoning and judgment, activity, discrimination, and self-control.
Conformity (which promotes mediocrity) is rewarded in modern society. But it is contrary to human flourishing and development-progress. The diversity of European culture is responsible for its achievements.
Under what conditions can the liberty of the individual be limited?
Social rules of conduct:
- The interests of one another should not be injured, i.e. interests that ought to be considered either tacitly or legally as rights.
- Each person must adopt an appropriate share of responsibility for defending the society and its individuals from harm.
If the harm done to another does not violate that person's rights, the offender should be punished by opinion rather than law.
If an action affects no one's interests, such an action must be tolerated (assuming the appropriate maturity and rationality of the agent.)
Any given person is far more interested in his or her own well-being than anyone else. Thus, that person must be allowed the freedom to pursue the good as he or she understands it. The consequences of any individual's actions will be born by that person alone. As for the claim that extravagant conduct harms society "indirectly", Mill claims in the interests of freedom it is better to tolerate self-regarding behavior one disapproves of than to punish it. Finally, when judging the merits of the behavior of others, society is more likely to be wrong than right.
An individual is not accountable to society for his or her actions as long as they concern only that individual.
The individual is accountable to society for actions that concern the interests of others and may be subjected to appropriate social or legal punishments.
Return to: Homepage / Syllabus /
© T. R. Quigley, 1997