John Stuart Mills On Liberty Essay

Length: 8 pages Sources: 7 Subject: Philosophy - Philosophers Type: Essay Paper: #86770692
Excerpt from Essay :

Political Philosophy II: Theories of Freedom

John Stuart Mill's On Liberty is one of the foundational defenses of liberal, democratic government. According to Mill, there are certain core principles "that should regulate how governments and societies, whether democratic or not, can restrict individual liberties."[footnoteRef:1] Mill wrote that regardless of whether a monarch, dictator, or even a democratic majority governed, the only reason to deprive others of their liberties was what he called the harm principle, namely, that "a harm, an action must be injurious or set back important interests of particular people, interests in which they have rights" and "justifies restricting liberty to prevent harm to others."[footnoteRef:2] In defining the harm principle, Mill's intentions were clearly noble in that he wished to prevent the illegitimate use of power by the state to restrict free speech, sexual behavior, or other personal, private choices. However, since Mill wrote, even a number of sympathetic philosophers have found the harm principle to be problematic because of its failure to consider social consequences of apparently self-injurious activities. [1: David Brink, "Mill's Moral and Political Philosophy," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2016,>.] [2: Ibid.]

Further Elucidation of the Harm Principle

First and foremost, to critique the harm principle, it is essential to understand what constitutes harm in Mill's estimation. A harm is something far more serious than what Mill categorizes as a "mere offense;" rather while "offenses tend to be comparatively minor and ephemeral," a harm is "an action [that] must be injurious or set back important interests of particular people, interests in which they have rights." [footnoteRef:3] A distinction between harm and offense is critical, given that many personal decisions may give offense to someone but not do them any harm. For example, it might offend me that my neighbor engages in sexual activity outside of marriage, but this does me no real harm. Mill notes that it might give him offense that certain individuals prefer certain types of literature and music over others but the fact that some people do not is not an actual harm to himself. [3: Ibid.]

The harm principle does not only refer to actions which take place after the fact. "In many cases all we could reasonably know is that a given action risks harm."[footnoteRef:4] Thus, an individual driving while intoxicated would still be violating the harm principle even if he or she did not injure another individual because this is still known, risky behavior towards other drivers. Similarly, a decision by a company to disregard basic safety principles in producing toys for children would also be regarded as a violation of the harm principle given that this could feasibly result in deaths, even if no actual deaths are reported. The state has a legitimate interest in outlawing such activities on the basis of their potential risk. [4: Ibid.]

On the other hand, Mill always wishes to err on the side of...

Regulation even when harm ensues is valid only when there is "a reason that might be outweighed by countervailing reasons not to regulate. If the regulation is more harmful than the behavior in question, it may be best not to regulate, despite the pro tanto case for regulation"[footnoteRef:5] It is here the challenges ensue of weighing the different rights of one individual versus another or against society as a whole arise. For example, mandating that health insurance be provided for all employees by employers who possess businesses of a certain size (say over fifty people) is designed to prevent the harm of leaving persons uninsured. But mandating coverage may cause harms to a business owner because of the expense and to the public when additional costs are passed on to consumers. The question of whether the regulation is more harmful than the benefit accrued by the regulation is less obvious. In some instances, such as legalizing gay marriage, any potential harms (supposed infractions of individual's religious beliefs) may seem obviously outweighed by the benefits of according full liberties to gay and lesbian people. But with other decisions, the cost-benefit analysis of the harms of regulation versus not regulating are not so obvious. [5: Ibid.]

Of course, Mill himself was cognizant of this fact, as an inhabitant of a capitalist society. Capitalism by its very nature has a divide between the haves and the have nots. Mill supports this, given his view that "there are some actions which harm others, but which should nevertheless be allowed."[footnoteRef:6] Economic competition is not the same as fraud because "allowing economic competition, Mill thought, contributes more to the general welfare of society than preventing it."[footnoteRef:7] Commensurate with his utilitarian principles, Mill did not view liberty and the harm principle as an expression of individual rights as much as he saw it as furthering the good of society. [6: Michael Lacewing, "Mill's harm principle," Routledge, 2-3.] [7: Ibid.]

Restricting Pork and Other Example

Mill himself, even when he wrote On Liberty, was cognizant of objections to his harm principle. One example he notes is that of the prohibition to the consumption of pork in Muslim countries. According to the harm principle, Mill asserts that this merely restricts liberty and forces individuals to conform to religious dictates. "It is, in the first place, an offence against their religion . . . that peculiar character, resembling an instinctive antipathy, which [is] the idea of uncleanness . . . "[footnoteRef:8] For Mill, the prohibition of pork is solely rooted in religious prejudice and thus cannot be defensible. The result is merely the restriction of liberty and harm is done to others and there is no rational benefit accrued to the majority. It is analogous to the Puritans banning the practice of the theater. "Wherever the Puritans have been sufficiently powerful . . . they have endeavored, with considerable success, to put down all public, and nearly all private, amusements."[footnoteRef:9] [8: John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, Project Gutenberg, 161] [9: Ibid., 164]

Cite this Document:

"John Stuart Mills On Liberty" (2017, January 17) Retrieved June 12, 2021, from

"John Stuart Mills On Liberty" 17 January 2017. Web.12 June. 2021. <>

"John Stuart Mills On Liberty", 17 January 2017, Accessed.12 June. 2021,

Related Documents
John Stuart Mill's Concept of Liberty Professes
Words: 1742 Length: 5 Pages Topic: Government Paper #: 34193598

John Stuart Mill's concept of liberty professes to be liberal but ends up with a distinctly 'non-liberal' feel when analysing the details. This paper endeavours to define exactly what Mills' notion of liberty is and how it should be regulated by studying his book "On Liberty." The main discrepancies of his theory will be highlighted so as to demonstrate the apparent contradiction between his ideology and the examples he chooses

John Stuart Mill's Philosophy of Utilitarianism
Words: 1730 Length: 5 Pages Topic: Black Studies - Philosophy Paper #: 98688524

Moreover, how does he justify saying one would rather be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool who is satisfied? His point is obvious - it is better to have brains and not achieve happiness than be dumb and be contented. But Socrates, brilliant as he was, chose death over exile from Athens, which it can be argued did not lead to happiness in Socrates nor in the students who admired

John Stuart Mill the 19th
Words: 2516 Length: 6 Pages Topic: Business - Ethics Paper #: 24655243

Personal usefulness or utility is not required to clash with public usefulness. Usefulness or Utility is often misguided for pragmatism. but, pragmatism is the affinity to encourage certain preferred objective, regardless of the consideration between what is correct and reasonable. Utility is the standard level of being practical, and hence it must take into account not just what would generate a preferred objective, but what would encourage the maximum

John Stuart Mill on Liberty in John
Words: 671 Length: 2 Pages Topic: Government Paper #: 42028573

John Stuart Mill on Liberty In John Stuart Mill's brilliant 19th Century essay "On Liberty" he states that "the worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it." What Mills is purporting in that statement is that the State (the government) must not impede on the natural development of individual liberty. We are never to forget that we have inalienable rights for life and

John Stuart Mill and "Majority"
Words: 714 Length: 2 Pages Topic: Government Paper #: 26909238

Unfortunately, we have had no more success at finding that limit than Mill did, for what we see all around us today is that very same "political despotism" of which Mill speaks with trepidation. Mill writes that it is the "majority" who makes "the ways of mankind" (102-3), but his notion of "majority rule" appears to be based on the assumption that political despotism has not been enshrined. Majority rule

Liberty, by John Stuart Mill How John
Words: 1472 Length: 4 Pages Topic: Women's Issues - Sexuality Paper #: 75980560

Liberty, by John Stuart Mill [...] how John Stuart Mill would view the issue of pornography. Pornography has been argued by many feminists and advocates for women's rights to be pernicious to women because it eroticizes and promotes relationships of inequality and subordination of women to men. For this reason, they argue that pornography should be censored. What you think Mill would say about this? Would Mill be a