On Liberty

On Liberty, published in February 1859, is John Stuart Mill‘s classic essay on “the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual”. Dedicated to the memory of his wife, Harriet Taylor, who had died the year before and whom Mill called its joint author, it defends the harm principle, freedom of thought and expression, and the value of individuality against the conformity of mass society. It is one of the founding texts of liberalism, cited ever since in debates about free speech, censorship, drugs, religion, sexuality and paternalism.

At a glance

The argument

The new tyranny. Mill begins historically. The old struggle between liberty and authority was a struggle of subjects against rulers. With the rise of democracy, people imagined that, the rulers now being identified with the people, there was no need to limit their power. But “the ‘people’ who exercise the power are not always the same people with those over whom it is exercised”; democracy brings the tyranny of the majority. And beyond the law, there is a social tyranny “more formidable than many kinds of political oppression”, since “it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself”. Protection is needed “against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling”.

The harm principle. Mill proposes “one very simple principle”: “the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” We may remonstrate, reason, persuade or entreat a person for his own good, but not compel him. The principle applies only to adults “in the maturity of their faculties”, and — Mill adds, in a passage much criticised — not to “backward states of society”. He grounds it not in abstract rights but in utility, “in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being”. The sphere of liberty includes liberty of conscience, thought and feeling, and of expressing opinions; liberty of tastes and pursuits, “of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character”; and liberty of association.

Freedom of thought and discussion. Chapter 2, the most famous, argues that “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.” Silencing an opinion is wrong for four reasons:

1. The silenced opinion may be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. The judges of Socrates and the persecutors of the Christians — even the wise emperor Marcus Aurelius — were certain they were right.
2. Even if false, it may contain part of the truth; since the prevailing opinion is rarely the whole truth, “it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied”.
3. Even if the received opinion is the whole truth, unless it is vigorously contested it will be held “in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds”. “He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.”
4. The meaning of the doctrine itself will be lost, becoming “a mere formal profession”, a dead dogma rather than a living truth.

Individuality. Chapter 3 extends the argument from opinions to actions and ways of life. Mill laments that in his age “society has now fairly got the better of individuality”, so that people “exist as if under the eye of a hostile and dreaded censorship” and ask not “what do I prefer?” but “what is suitable to my position?”. “Human nature is not a machine to be built after a model, and set to do exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree, which requires to grow and develop itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing.” Originality, genius and even eccentricity are valuable: “that so few now dare to be eccentric, marks the chief danger of the time”. Society benefits from “experiments in living”, which show what ways of life are worth adopting. He warns that Europe may become like China, which had stagnated, Mill believed, through enforced uniformity.

The limits of society’s authority. Chapter 4 distinguishes self-regarding conduct, which affects only the agent (or others only with their consent), from other-regarding conduct. Society may punish acts that harm others’ interests; it may not punish self-regarding vices, though individuals may avoid and warn others against a person they find foolish. Mill criticises Sabbatarian laws, the prohibition of alcohol in some American states, the persecution of the Mormons and Muslim prohibitions of pork imposed on others, as invasions of liberty by majorities imposing their own tastes.

Applications. The last chapter tests the principle: trade is a social act, but restrictions on it are generally inexpedient; the sale of poisons may be regulated by labelling; a man may be stopped from crossing an unsafe bridge if there is no time to warn him, since he does not desire to fall into the river; no one may sell himself into slavery, since “the principle of freedom cannot require that he should be free not to be free”. The state may require the education of children, though not run all schools itself.

Reception

The book was attacked in its time by James Fitzjames Stephen (Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, 1873) and by Christian moralists, and celebrated by liberals across Europe and Asia. Its harm principle has been central to debates about the legal enforcement of morality (Hart and Devlin in the 1960s), pornography, drug laws, hate speech and medical paternalism. Critics ask where harm begins, whether any conduct is purely self-regarding, and how a utilitarian can make liberty nearly absolute.

In conversation

• “If all mankind minus one” — the case against silencing anyone.
• The tree, not the machine — human nature and individuality.
• The man on the unsafe bridge — the limits of paternalism.