John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty” expresses his opinion that liberty is the chief political value. He wrote this book to encourage others to exercise their liberty rather than conform, which has become the easy thing to do in a modern society wherein rule is determined by majority consent. Mill advocated that individual liberty should be preserved at all costs unless its preservation harms others or takes away their liberty. The liberty about which he wrote is civil, or social, liberty rather than liberty of the will. He was concerned with the power of society and government to oppress individual liberty and, through this book, sought to define the limits of the power that society can legitimately exercise over the individual. Mill believed that liberty of thought and feeling, liberty of tastes and pursuits, and liberty to unite are the essential liberties with which society must not interfere; “[n]o society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free, whatever may be its form of government” (Mill 55).
In previous ages, the struggle between liberty and authority was comprised of the struggle between subjects and their governments, in which subjects fought for protection against the tyranny of their rulers. Today, in democratic societies, the government is no longer independent of the people. Temporary elected leaders rule for the people and according to the will of the people. However, the people are still not free from tyranny; this is because the “will of the people…practically means the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people” (Mill 46). The majority can manipulate public opinion to coincide with its own, hence exhibiting tyranny through silencing the minority’s voice. The minority must be protected from the “tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling” or else its liberty is denied—particularly, its freedoms of thought and speech. Mill strongly believed in the sanctity of these freedoms and that they should never be violated; “[i]f all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind” (Mill 59). Stifling one man’s freedom of speech would rob the human race of a potentially right opinion and prevent a possible truth from being revealed.
According to Mill, man can interfere with another’s liberty of action only in the pursuit of self-protection or the protection of others: “[T]he 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” (Mill 52). Mill based this idea on his opinion that liberty is the most important thing to be attained, even more so than what is wise or morally right. I can encourage a friend to do what is right, but unless the consequences of his actions are harmful to another, I cannot force him to do so. This is because 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” (Mill 52). The liberty of every man with the capacity to act rationally must be preserved, and his wishes respected.
I agree with Mill that liberty is a good thing which should be preserved, that it has a positive impact on society. Although his idea that a person’s liberty should be interfered with only when his behavior harms others sounds pleasant to the ear, I’m not sure how practicable it is. Mill believed that the preservation of liberty is more important than ethics, but I believe that society’s duty to act morally is more important. Mill’s reasoning is not based on an absolute scale of what is right and wrong, but on liberty as the principal good. Although I recognize that liberty is extremely important, I think more important things do exist. Suppose that I have a friend who has no family or any other friends excluding myself. If he arbitrarily decides to kill himself and I discover his plans, should I stop him? This would harm solely him, as it would not cause me or anyone else to harm anyone. According to Mill, I cannot force him to refrain from killing himself, as “the individual is sovereign.” However, I believe that I am morally coerced to do all I can to prevent him from taking his life. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but liberty over happiness, and life over liberty.
