Mill, Locke, and Rousseau on Equality: A Comparative Study

John Stuart Mill on Equality

Society typically views the triad nexus of politicians, bureaucracies, and the financial elite with suspicion, believing they breach the common person's rights, and consequently strives to ensure they behave as it desires. John Stuart Mill argues: "The government, whether completely responsible to the people or not, will often attempt to control the expression of opinion, except when in doing so it makes itself the organ of the general intolerance of the public" (p. 376).

This societal attitude is understandable, as the triad nexus has historically violated people's will and freedom. As a result, democracies were created in which the common person is allowed to take part in national decision-making. However, in a democratic system the community governs governmental decisions, giving rise to a self-governing nation. Mill warns that in democratic systems, public opinion — that is, the majority's opinion — quells the minority's views and demands, which represents the severest kind of despotism. He aims at ascertaining the maximum degree of societal force that may be exerted on a person without violating personal freedom. He writes: "The government is entirely at one with the people, and never thinks of exerting any power of coercion unless in agreement with what it conceives to be their voice. But I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves or by their government. The power itself is illegitimate" (p. 376).

The majority's standpoint is not necessarily — or even often — ideal. Prejudice and personal drives factor into decisions made for the overall community. Mill writes: "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." Moreover, an assessment of historical conflicts, prejudices, and events reveals that the majority's decisions are not always grounded in sincere intentions. Taking the minority's view into account is genuinely worthwhile. He writes: "The majority of the eminent men of every past generation held many opinions now known to be erroneous, and did or approved numerous things which no one will now justify" (p. 376).

The utilitarian theorist Mill also supports equality for women and opposes their subordination, claiming it greatly impedes human progress. He writes: "The principle which regulates the existing social relations between the two sexes — the legal subordination of one sex to the other — is wrong in itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement; and that it ought to be replaced by a principle of perfect equality, admitting no power or privilege on the one side, nor disability on the other" (pp. 388–389).

Mill witnessed an era in which culture and even the law supported and mandated female subordination. Marriage, child-rearing, and domestic tasks were considered women's sole domain. Women were largely denied the ability to seek divorce from a bad marriage, access formal education, own wealth or property, vote, serve on juries, participate in business, or travel independently. Their husbands were considered their masters in virtually every respect. As Mill observed: "The adoption of this system of inequality never was the result of deliberation, or forethought, or any social ideas, or any notion whatever of what conduced to the benefit of humanity or the good order of society. It arose simply from the fact that from the very earliest twilight of human society, every woman (owing to the value attached to her by men, combined with her inferiority in muscular strength) was found in a state of bondage to some man" (p. 389).

Female inequality hampers nearly half the community's progress and prevents society from benefiting from women's skills and capacities. Mill questions this imprudent practice and argues that existing regulations and traditions stem from the rule of the most powerful. "The inequality of rights between men and women has no other source than the law of the strongest" (p. 390). Men's physical superiority led society to assert their superiority in every other domain, without evidence. Mill likens women's condition in this regard to that of a slave.