On Liberty

“Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.” 

Mill discusses a tyranny that derives not from the government but from the people that constitute society. This “social tyranny” does not have to be codified in law to be influential. Mill notes here that society’s mandates that emerge from social conventions might be right or wrong in the way of promoting the social good. Or, those mandates might overstep into areas of life that should only be controlled by an individual, not by a group.

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that 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 civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” 

In this passage, Mill states his general argument about liberty. His essay seeks to determine where the proper limits of governmental power over individuals should reside, and he determines that a government or society should only interfere with a person’s actions if they threaten to harm others. No person should be prevented from carrying out behaviors that might only harm oneself, or one’s reputation. This formulation of liberty and limited government interference offers a great degree of leniency to individuals compared to the political philosophies of most politicians active in England and in other representative governments at the time Mill wrote.

“Apart from the peculiar tenets of individual thinkers, there is also in the world at large an increasing inclination to stretch unduly the powers of society over the individual, both by the force of opinion and even by that of legislation: and as the tendency of all the changes taking place in the world is to strengthen society, and diminish the power of the individual, this encroachment is not one of the evils which tend spontaneously to disappear, but, on the contrary, to grow more and more formidable.” 

The growing power of governments to restrict liberties of individuals is, to Mill, an immediate and growing concern. This claim exemplifies the urgency with which Mill writes. The author does not provide examples or evidence of this claim, but it is a basic assumption of the political philosophy he expresses in the essay. This passage also discusses the multiple channels by which society can condemn a person’s opinions or behaviors. Laws have the capacity to do that, but so do the social conventions and demands of communities outside of formal government structures.

“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 emphasizes the societal benefit of differing opinions. In this passage, he says that even a single divergent opinion should be tolerated. Any suppression of opinion, whether just one or all besides one, is equally detrimental to society in Mill’s view. He routinely explains how a majority can impose its will upon others, but that will might not be true or good for the community. It is only through differing opinions that people might have discussions that will lead to what is truly best for everyone.

“There is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true, because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation. Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion, is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right.” 

Here, Mill argues that an opinion can only be proven true once it is thoroughly tested through lengthy discussion and debate. This is a process that requires efforts to disprove an opinion, not blind conformity to it. Mill notes that people tend to assume their own opinions to be correct without this commitment to testing them against other viewpoints. When Mill talks of the “purposes of action,” he means that a person could be reasonably confident enough in a notion’s truth in order to be justified in acting upon it. Again, this confidence should stem from having thoroughly vetted an opinion for viable contradictions, not an illusion of human infallibility.

“But, indeed, the dictum that truth always triumphs over persecution, is one of those pleasant falsehoods which men repeat after one another till they pass into commonplaces, but which all experience refutes. History teems with instances of truth put down by persecution.” 

In this quote, Mill claims that the truth does not always prevail. Historical examples would reveal the opposite: truth gets persecuted. This statement is important because it illustrates the urgency with which Mill writes. He is critical of society and calls for conscious efforts to alter ways of thinking and interacting with one another. It is also significant that Mill brings up historical evidence in this passage. He discusses historical examples to illustrate his claims throughout the essay. In this case, he goes on to reference several religious persecutions, including the coming of the Protestant Reformation, during which Catholic powers quashed emergent Protestant sects.

“But it is not on the impassioned partisan, it is on the calmer and more disinterested bystander, that this collision of opinions works its salutary effect. Not the violence conflict between parts of the truth, but the quiet suppression of half of it, is the formidable evil: there is always hope when people are forced to listen to both sides; it is when they attend only to one that errors harden into prejudices, and truth itself ceases to have the effect of truth, by being exaggerated into falsehood.” 

When people have a disagreement of opinion, discussions can get heated. Mill is realistic about people in these circumstances: In the moment of confrontation, it is unlikely that either opposing party will change their opinion to match the other person’s, or even concede very much at all. This discussion, however, might be useful to anyone who hears it and can think through the contradictions and arguments themselves. People learn by considering information that is nuanced and at odds. When people do not have the opportunity to learn this way and accept a single viewpoint to be true, they develop biases and accept arbitrary opinions as the truth. Exposure to actual truth will not change their mind.

“The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people. But if he 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.” 

This passage is one of the opening statements of Mill’s third chapter, in which he discusses individuality and acting on opinions. As far as an individual’s actions are concerned, there should be no interference unless the actions threaten to harm people. If a person’s actions only affect the person acting them out, society should not intervene. Mill references the logic of the previous chapter—that society should not interfere with a person’s beliefs or opinions even if they are unpopular—in this related context of behavior rather than thought. This should hold true whether or not the actions might cause harm to the person doing them.

“No one’s idea of excellence in conduct is that people should do absolutely nothing but copy one another. No one would assert that people ought not to put into their mode of life, and into the conduct of their concerns, any impress whatever of their own judgment, or of their own individual character. On the other hand, it would be absurd to pretend that people ought to live as if nothing whatever had been known in the world before they same into it; as if experience had as yet done nothing towards showing that one mode of existence, or of conduct, is preferable to another. Nobody denies that people should be so taught and trained in youth, as to know and benefit by the ascertained results of human experience. But it is the privilege and proper condition of a human being, arrived at the maturity of his faculties, to use and interpret experience in his own way.” 

According to Mill, it is commonly accepted that people should express some individuality but not be totally rogue as if they have never encountered civil society. Excellence emerges from divergence from normal standards. But people who excel in a particular area probably do so by learning conventions and best practices to establish their foundation. Mill advocates for this foundational learning, which happens in youth and adolescence, but it should be augmented by exploration through individuality once foundations are established.

“One whose desires and impulses are not his own, has no character, no more than a steam-engine has a character.” 

In this comparison, Mill contrasts the machinery that builds a steam engine with the unique faculties of the mind that make humans capable of thoughts and actions. Steam engines are controlled by people; they cannot act of their own volition. People should, in Mill’s view, have control over themselves. Not all people, however, think critically and make decisions for themselves. Mill would say that such people have no character, but people who do act on their own “desires and impulses” do have character.

“It will not be denied by anybody, that originality is a valuable element in human affairs. There is always need of persons not only to discover new truths, and point out when what were once truths are true no longer, but also to commence new practices, and set the example of more enlightened conduct, and better taste and sense in human life.” 

The concept of originality is related closely to individuality but refers to a product rather than a process. Individuality can breed originality. Mill prizes originality and notes that society in general values originality even as it promotes conformity in practice. Mill occasionally grounds his arguments in points that he asserts everyone would agree on. This move roots Mill’s logic in a logic shared by society at large.

“Persons of genius, it is true, are, and are always likely to be, a small minority; but in order to have them, it is necessary to preserve the soil in which they grow. Genius can only breathe freely in an atmosphere of freedom.” 

Mill asserts than every person has something positive to contribute as an individual, but he acknowledges here that there are people so original and talented that they constitute true genius. These rare cases are worth protecting, and that can only be achieved through encouraging individuality and originality. Without that encouraging environment, genius might be stifled.

“If it were only that people have diversities of taste that is reason enough for not attempting to shape them all after one model. But different persons also require different conditions for their spiritual development; and can no more exist healthily in the same moral, than all the variety of plants can in the same physical atmosphere and climate. The same things which are helps to one person towards the cultivation of his higher nature, are hindrances to another.” 

According to Mill, conformity hurts individuals and society. Different people need to take different paths through life, and one person’s preference might be to another person’s detriment. Mill says that even if people did generally require the same approaches and resources, the fact of differing tastes between people should be enough to justify allowing ample room for different courses.

“The greatness of England is now all collective: individually small, we only appear capable of anything great by our habit of combining; and with this our moral and religious philanthropists are perfectly contented. But it was men of another stamp than this that made England what it has been; and men of another stamp will be needed to prevent its decline.” 

This passage articulates some of Mill’s criticism of his present society and illuminates some of his basic assumptions and biases. Mill is of the opinion that England is a great nation that was built by great men. He considers English people highly civilized, especially to people he references as “barbarians” in other parts of the essay. Mill asserts a desire to improve English society so that it might once again be as favorable to individual great men as it used to be, although he does not advocate for a return to the past in all elements of society.

“Though society is not founded on a contract, and though no good purpose is answered by inventing a contract in order to deduce social obligations from it, every one who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest.” 

This quote appears at the beginning of Chapter 4, when Mill discusses the legitimate reach of society’s authority to police individuals. First, Mill rejects the idea of a social contract, which is a concept derived from Enlightenment-era philosophy. A social contract is an unspoken agreement that members of society enter, agreeing to make sacrifices and forfeit some degree of freedom for the protection and benefits that society offers. Mill is not completely resistant to the general pattern of serving society to promote the common wellbeing, but he does not favor forfeitures of freedom or conformity. For Mill, a person’s basic duty to society is not to harm others or violate anyone’s rights. He also states that a person should contribute to a society’s defense.

“In the conduct of human beings towards one another, it is necessary that general rules should for the most part be observed, in order that people may know what they have to expect; but in each person’s own concerns, his individual spontaneity is entitled to free exercise. Considerations to aid his judgment, exhortations to strengthen his will, may be offered to him, even obtruded on him, by others; but he, himself, is the final judge. All errors which he is likely to commit against advice and warning, are far outweighed by the evil of allowing others to constrain him to what they deem his good.” 

The differentiation between a person’s personal matters and matters involving other people is an important distinction in On Liberty. In general—“for the most part,” Mill writes—social conventions of behavior can enable comfortable and productive communication and interaction among members of a society. In personal matters, however, people should be freer to act out their impulses regardless of popular opinion or social norms. Mill suggests that it is acceptable to try to reason with people to alter their personal behaviors, but he does not think that society has the right to forcibly compel people to alter behaviors that are not directly harmful to others.

“How (it may be asked) can any part of the conduct of a member of society be a matter of indifference to the other members? No person is an entirely isolated being; it is impossible for a person to do anything seriously or permanently hurtful to himself; without mischief reaching at least to his near connections, and often far beyond them.” 

This passage is an example in which Mill addresses a counterargument. In this case, Mill acknowledges that it is unlikely that a person’s actions would truly only affect that same person. At the very least, a person’s actions impact their family or close friends. Mill’s ultimate response to this challenge is that when it becomes clear that a person’s actions are impacting others in any significant way, it becomes reasonable for society to intervene and deliver punishment. When the impacts are minimal, however, a person’s freedom should be protected more than public convenience.

“But the strongest of all the arguments against the interference of the public with purely personal conduct, is that when it does interfere, the odds are that it interferes wrongly, and in the wrong place.” 

In this passage, Mill reveals his general distrust of the public as decision makers. He suggests here that it is most common for society to inappropriately intervene when intervention into personal affairs happens. This, he says, is the best reason to favor individual liberty in almost all cases, and limit interference only to instances in which there is a threat of direct harm.

“The article of Mormonite doctrine which is the chief provocative to the antipathy which thus breaks through the ordinary restraints of religious tolerance, is its sanction of polygamy; which, though permitted to Mahomedans, and Hindoos, and Chinese, seems to excite unquenchable animosity when practised by persons who speak English, and profess to be a kind of Christians. No one has a deeper disapprobation than I have of this Mormon institution; both for other reasons, and because, far from being in any way countenanced by the principle of liberty, it is a direct infraction of that principle, being a mere riveting of the chains of one half of the community, and an emancipation of the other from reciprocity of obligation towards them. Still, it must be remembered that this relation is as much voluntary on the part of the women concerned in it, and who may be deemed the sufferers by it, as is the case with any other form of the marriage institution; and however surprising this fact may appear, it has its explanation in the common ideas and customs of the world, which teaching women to think marriage the one thing needful, make it intelligible that many a woman should prefer being one of several wives, to not being a wife at all.” 

Mill discusses several examples that illustrate unjust persecutions against groups of people with opinions and beliefs that go against accepted norms. This example pertains to society’s reception of the Mormon practice of polygamy, or the taking of multiple wives. Mill makes it clear that personally he does not condone the practice, but he explains that it does not constitute a violation of freedom for which a state would have the right to intervene. Mormon wives who are involved in polygamous unions, Mill explains, freely agree to the arrangement. Even though it is in a very specific context, this is one of the areas in the essay in which Mill discusses women’s issues. Here, he acknowledges that societies tend to project values onto women that stress marriage—and motherhood by extension—above other aspects of life. He also says that Mormon women might reasonably be “deemed […] sufferers.” However, not all would agree with that categorization, and judgments should not justify persecution.

“If poisons were never bought or used for any purpose except the commission of murder, it would be right to prohibit their manufacture and sale. They may, however, be wanted not only for innocent but useful purposes, and restrictions cannot be imposed in the one case without operating in the other.”

In the final chapter, Mill talks about several “applications” of his maxims and offers concrete examples. Although these examples clarify his positions, they also reveal the complexity of real-world situations versus theory. In this passage, Mill discusses poison. He says that if poison were solely a tool for murder, it would be proper for society to actively prohibit it. Since poison has other uses than homicide, however, it should not be restricted, but instead simply come with a warning. He goes on to acknowledge that governments and society have a duty to prevent rather than just punish crimes, but they must do so without violating liberty.

“Drunkenness, for example, in ordinary cases, is not a fit subject for legislative interference; but I should deem it perfectly legitimate that a person, who had once been convicted of any act of violence to others under the influence of drink, should be placed under a special legal restriction, personal to himself; that if he were afterwards found drunk, he should be liable to a penalty, and that if when in that state he committed another offence, the punishment to which he would be liable for that other offence should be increased in severity.” 

This example illustrates another practical application of the limits of personal liberties and societal authorities. Mill would see required prohibition by law as a total violation of liberty. In individual cases, however, sobriety mandates would be acceptable if someone had proven violent and harmful to others while inebriated. Furthermore, penalties should increase as offenses persist.

“The principle of freedom cannot require that he should be free not to be free. It is not freedom, to be allowed to alienate his freedom.” 

In most cases, a person’s personal choices should dictate their actions and society should not interfere even if it is detrimental to that person. Mill offers an extreme example to explain the exception to that rule. If a man were to try to sell himself into slavery, that transaction should be null and void. Since he would forfeit all future freedom, and since freedom is the basis of liberty, individuality, and, in Mill’s view, “civilization,” a person cannot legally forfeit their freedom. A person is only able to make choices that perpetuate freedom, not obstruct it. While a man is free to injure himself, he is not free to terminate his freedom, for that makes him unfree.

“It still remains unrecognized, that to bring a child into existence without a fair prospect of being able, not only to provide food for its body, but instruction and training for its mind, is a moral crime, both against the unfortunate offspring and against society; and that if the parent does not fulfil this obligation, the State ought to see it fulfilled, at the charge, as far as possible, of the parent.”

While most of the essay concerns adults, Mill occasionally discusses children. To Mill, parents do not have full reign to raise children as they see fit, even though Mill usually supports differing—even false—opinions. Mill insists that parents must offer education to their children, and that the state should enforce that obligation. He says here that it is a moral crime against all of society not to educate the youth properly. Mill does not advocate for a single state-approved and state-sponsored curriculum. He advocates for a variety of educational options but maintains that children must be compelled to attend and that the burden of facilitating that process falls to parents as much as possible.