On Liberty by John Stuart Mill edited with an introduction by Elizabeth Rapaport
A core problem in democracies is balancing the freedom of individuals to act in ways they think are acceptable against the restraints of government protecting social order. Mill lays out a lot of philosophical groundwork in support of the rights of individuals against the will of the majority, which can often feel like (and sometime is) tyrannical. Mill's first attempt to resolve this problem is by invoking the principle of doing no harm to others. A person can decide for themselves what is okay to do and, as long as no one else is effected, that person should not be interfered with. His first chapter is about freedom of thought and discussion. He advocates for very broad freedoms with regard to opinions and recognizes a need for ideas to be presented and argued over in order to prove their worth. He objects to opinions that are held by tradition or authority without knowing the reasoning behind those opinions.
Mill acknowledges that the problem of liberty becomes trickier when moving from individual opinions to individual actions. While he believes in a free market of ideas, he states that opinions which encourage or inspire bad actions can legitimately be limited by society. All the more so, the actions that harm others (his idea of "bad actions") can and must be held in check by society. He recognizes that very few actions are not public actions--as long as any other person is involved, the action is public. Also, actions provide examples or ideas to other people, possibly causing harm. Further, there can be circumstances where the state has an obligation to protect someone from harming themselves. So he needs to refine the No-Harm-To-Others principle to allow exceptions.
His new criterion for social obligation is to act in a way not to violate a specific obligation to another person or group of persons. Some relationships create obligations (which are often mutual or complimentary), like between husbands and wives, parents and children, employers and employees. One can't spend money recklessly and cause harm to family members or failure to make payroll. Contractual obligations need to be fulfilled and can be enforced. Mill cites two types of public coercion. First, public opinion can and does punish people who do harm through their actions; fear of public, social criticism is a motivator not to do acts contrary to what's publicly acceptable. Second, legal punishments are used to redress grievances between individuals or groups. The tricky part of the system is to find the dividing line between practices that can be tolerated by society (Mill cites the example of Mormons) and those that cannot. At the end of this essay, he provides some examples of applying his principles.
Mill presents a clear and thorough argument for his position. While his investigation is interesting, I found it incomplete. As a utilitarian, his idea of liberty is built on what makes one happy and he depends on people to discover what their own happiness is and pursue it in their own ways. There is no depth of understanding human nature, no authentic human anthropology, underpinning Mill's theory. Anyone can chose any form of happiness and claim it is authentic regardless of its actual compatibility with their own human nature, as long as they are not harming others. Mill needs a more robust anthropology in order to understand and explain what constitutes harm for other people and how much harm can be tolerated in a democratic society.
Mildly recommended--this is a classical philosophical text but it is not the best there is.
Posts
