Topic: Political Ideas in Revolution: How consistent is Mill’s defence of Liberty?
Length: 1453 Words


John Stuart Mill was born in 1806 to James Mill who brought him up as a strict utilitarian. He became a well renowned Philosopher and Economist and went on to write many works of literature including ‘On the Subjection of Women’ and ‘The Political Economy’. In 1859 he penned one of his most famous essays ‘On Liberty’ which is a fundamental piece of liberal history. In On Liberty Mill explained that by granting an individual the ability to construct their own opinions and (to an extent) freely perform actions then it is not only beneficial to the individual but society as a whole. Therefore, Mill reasoned, it is favourable for society to respect an individuals liberty as a means of the advancement of society as a whole.

This essay attempts to answer the question posed “How consistent is Mill’s defence of liberty?” To achieve this we must first outline our definition of Liberty as to fully understand what it is Mill is defending. The Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics refers to it’s definition of ‘freedom’ implying that the terms are interchangeable, the definition for freedom is very lengthy but the first sentence is an excellent summary and suitable for this essay, simply “Absence of interference or impediment” (McLean and McMillan, 2003, p206). ‘Macmillan Foundations – Politics’ glossary of terms also direct us to the definition of freedom “The ability to think or act as one wishes; freedom implies either non-interference (negative freedom) or personal self-development (positive freedom).” (Heywood, 1997, p405).

So to answer the question we have to investigate, through analysing On Liberty and other academic work referring to Mill whether his work is either a watertight argument or riddled with inconsistencies or somewhere in between. It’s most appropriate to analyse Mills argument in order. Mill divides his essay into five chapters, the first being his introduction which he defines liberty as falling into three aspects of individuality, these also being the titles to his second, third and forth chapters. These are namely ‘Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion’, ‘Of Individuality, as One of the Elements of Well-Being’ and ‘Of the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual’.

In ‘Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion’ Mill explores the importance of allowing an individual to hold an opinion and express this opinion to others without penalty. He ties this in with his view of the ‘tyranny of the majority’, the subjection of the will of the minority to the will of a majority in democratic states. “If 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, 1869, Chapter 2, Paragraph 1). Mill goes on to state how whether if this single opinion is correct or incorrect (‘truthful’ or ‘erroneous’) than the mere comparison of this opinion to that of the majority is beneficial to society, “If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” (Mill, 1869, Chapter 2, Paragraph 1). It is at this point we can indentify the first (if at least a simple) contradiction within Mills work. In the introduction Mills is quick to outline that “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.” (Mill, 1869, Chapter 1, Paragraph 10). Mill is stating that (in modern England at least) it is not a necessity for those under eighteen to be treated with the benefits of liberty, but what biologically speaking separates a child one day before their eighteenth birthday and an adult one day over eighteen? Why should a poorly informed and apathetic unemployed person be given freedom of opinion when a well informed and opinionated A Level Politics student by treated as an inferior? Mills reasons that “Those who are still in a state to require being taken care of by others, must be protected against their own actions as well as against external injury” but with the example of the ‘child’ politics student it is likely that this clause does not apply to them yet are still legally not an adult, does the student deserve liberty or necessity?

In Chapter 3 ‘Of Individuality, as One of the Elements of Well-Being’ Mill moves on to look at how free people should be to perform actions. Mill writes that “if [a person] refrains from molesting others in what concerns them, and merely acts according to his own inclination and judgment in things which concern himself, the same reasons which show that opinion should be free, prove also that he should be allowed, without molestation, to carry his opinions into practice at his own cost.” (Mill, 1869, Chapter 3, Paragraph 1). What defines molestation? Physical contact is most certainly molestation if undesired, but what about verbal abuse? Mills writes that “The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people” (Mill, 1869, Chapter 3, Paragraph 1) but Mill neglects to give a definition of what sort of actions are a ‘nuisance’. Is running down the street naked a nuisance? Not to an on looking nudist certainly. It could be argued that restricting the action of an individual solely on the ground that they are a ‘nuisance’ is illiberal.

In John Gray’s ‘On Liberty: A Defence’ Gray identifies the three common criticisms of ‘On Liberty’. The first argument is based along the lines of his utilitarian ethics. Gray writes that “If Mill is truly and consistently a utilitarian moralist, surely every question about the justification of limiting liberty must be answered simply in terms of the good and the bad consequences of the various liberty-limiting policies under construction” (Gray, 1983, p3). Gray answers these critics by explaining how such a view “grossly caricatures utilitarian ethics” (Gray, 1983, p3). Furthermore “Reasons of economy, limited information and partial sympathies militate strongly against a policy of deciding every practical question by an appeal to the Principle of Utility” (Gray, 1983, p3). Gray also presents the common next argument by critics and his own counter argument. Firstly critics state that this bending of utilitarian thought is not presented in ‘On Liberty’, furthermore ‘On Liberty’ is not just presented as a set of rough guidelines but an absolute bar (Gray, 1983, p3). Gray retorts that “If limiting liberty merely promotes happiness or welfare, say by conferring enormous benefits on many men, it cannot be justified” (Gray, 1983, p3). In John Gray (same as above) and G.W. Smith’s ‘J.S. Mill On Liberty in focus’ a quote is provided from Mills ‘Autobiography’, “I found the fabric of my old and taught opinions giving way in many fresh places, but was incessantly occupied with weaving it a new” (Gray and Smith, 1991, p3) which suggests that within Mills mind the Principle of Liberty retains priority over the Principle of Utility. The point stand however that Mill made no decisive conformation of this view in ‘On Liberty’.

To conclude the amount of inconsistencies of Mills defence of liberty aired by analysis of ‘On Liberty’ is purely linked to the analysts personal interpretations of Mills writings. If in one frame of mind like his defenders Gray and Smith you will find no inconsistencies, only undeniable logic worthy of writing several books about to defend. If however you are of the mind of Mills critics throughout history (such as James Fitzjames Stephen, Gertrude Himmelfarb and Isaiah Berlin) you will discover a plethora of contradictions, even if like Berlin you view it “as a passionate and inspiring call-to-arms in the cause of individual liberty” (Gray and Smith, 1991, p5). Personally I lean more to the pro-Mill side of the debate, I believe that ‘On Liberty’ is a landmark piece of literature and as a liberal myself I agree with the large majority of what Mill writes. I find it personally difficult to find obvious contradictions within his work without relying on perhaps the now over used criticism of his utilitarian background. Furthermore I find highlighted criticisms are usually obtuse and it is difficult to apply their relevance when (in my opinion) ‘On Liberty’ is such an exemplary piece of literature.

Bibliography

Gray, J
Mill On Liberty: A Defence
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Plc, 1983

Gray, J. & Smith, G.W.
J.S. Mill On Liberty in focus
London: Routledge, 1991

Heywood, A.
Macmillan Foundations, Politics
London, Macmillan Press Ltd, 1997

McLean, I. and McMillan, A.
Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics
Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003

Mill, J.S.
On Liberty – 4th Edition
London: Longman, Roberts & Green, 1869
(Provided by http://www.bartleby.com, 1995)


(c)2005 Dave Randall