ASSIGNMENT ON THE TOPIC:

THE CRITICAL ANALYZATION OF J.S. MILL’S ESSAY

“ON LIBERTY”.

SUBMITTED BY:

LEMEI KONYAK

SUBMITTED TO:

Dr. CHUBATILA OZUKUM

MASTER OF ARTS

POLITICAL SCIENCE

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

ST. JOSEPH UNIVERSITY

DIMAPUR, NAGALAND-797115

JANUARY 2021
 If there is anyone who is Liberal it is John Stuart Mill. He was one of the foremost
liberal theorists of the 19th century, binding modern and classical liberalism in his ideas. His
defense of liberty however, has been greatly contested by traditionalist views but also highly
defended by revisionist views as well. Mill’s belief in individualism through utilitarian ethics
appears contradictory and highly debated. His harms principle and his assumptions on human
nature also submit to controversial views. On one hand, traditionalists condemn Mill as a highly
inconsistent thinker and his work On Liberty very critical in itself, but on the other hand,
revisionists see Mill as a consistent thinker who naturally refines and develops pre-existing
liberal ideas.

Mill opens On Liberty by explaining the nature of liberty versus authority. Traditionally, liberty
was defined as “the protection against the tyranny of political rulers.” To achieve liberty, limits
on state authority ought to be imposed, which would eventually lead to those in power becoming
more akin to tenants than perpetual rulers. By Mill’s time, the old orders of monarchy and
aristocracy were waning, and democratic republics began to predominate the European political
landscape.

The world was moving towards greater equality, a trend Mill appreciated, although not without
reservation. With the rise of democratic government came a new threat, what Alexis De
Tocqueville described as “tyranny of the majority.” Mill believed that a new form of social
tyranny was emerging, one that was in some ways worse than actual tyranny as it has “fewer
means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul
itself.”

At best, this new tyranny could lead to conformity; at worst it stifled the originality and
intellectual vigor needed for progress. Mill believes that all eras are either organic or critical. In
organic periods people accept some form of positive creed. In critical ones, positive creeds lose
their sway without other beliefs emerging to take their place. During critical periods we yearn for
new ideas, according to Mill, so we allow people to pursue their lives in “in innumerable and
conflicting directions.” This freedom to experiment with different ideas and ways of life allows
for progress, both material and moral.
 J.S. Mill’s father, James Mill, was a strong utilitarian theorist . His beliefs along with
the utilitarianism works of British philosopher Jeremy Bentham had a huge influence on J.S. Mill
growing up. In Mill’s essay On Liberty, we can examine how his defence of individualism with
utilitarian contentions create critical views. Mill believes in the ethic of utilitarianism in that the
state and individuals ought to be judged by their ability and action to promote “the greatest
happiness for the greatest number” of people, however as traditionalists see it, attaining the
utmost social good involves forfeiting certain individuals and sacrificing their happiness, because
happiness of a majority is greater than the happiness of a few individuals. Thus, the rudiment of
utilitarianism is in dispute with Mill’s beliefs in individuality and self-development.

In On Liberty, Mill defends freedom of the individual against “tyranny of the majority” where
dominant groups, more so the dominance of “public opinion”, inhibits lesser individuals. Mill’s
objection to the majority of society excluding the minority contradicts his utilitarian ethic. 19th
Century English critic James Fitzjames Stephen condemns Mill’s endeavour to defend individual
liberty from a utilitarian viewpoint by arguing that, if the fundamental value for utilitarianism is
to effectively enhance happiness of a society to the greatest extent, “then a consistent utilitarian
policy of social betterment will not be especially tender toward individual liberty”, the interest of
the majority outweigh the rights of the individual minority. Stephen views that utilitarian
principles pursues social welfare through restricting opinions of some members of society and
that individualism cannot be viewed with a utilitarian ethic J.S. Mill attempts to do.

On the other hand, revisionists argue that such traditionalist views are misinterpreted and that
Mill’s contradictions with utilitarianism is a “natural development of his utilitarian predecessors’
achievements” and his work not entirely incoherent. In Rem B. Edwards view, Mill is a
minimizing utilitarian and that the principle of utility does not impose on individuals the moral
obligation to maximize utility, but focuses on happiness alone as the “ultimate standard of value”
governing all human areas of practice. In On Liberty, Mill regards utility “as the ultimate appeal
on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent
interests of a man as a progressive being’. That is to say, Mill’s believes that utilitarianism is
principle of the higher pleasures, and that freedom of choice, reflective thought and active
imagination is a vital ingredient to human happiness. For Mill, diversity of opinion leads to
positive social good, therefore overlooking the minority and silencing their opinions deprives
“the human race, posterity as well as the existing generation.” For revisionists, Mill as a
utilitarian is not essentially inconsistent if he knowingly sacrifices some utility for the sake of a
fair distribution of the utility that remains. 

J.S. Mill’s notorious principle of liberty, the “harms principle” has also been disputed by
traditionalist and revisionist views. In chapter four of On Liberty, Mill argues that people’s
actions ought not to be as free as opinions and should be limited if they are a “nuisance to other
people” . He states “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.” Traditionalist
criticizes Mill’s harm principle because Mill leaves room to suggest that it would be acceptable
to limit liberty anytime if it could harm society in anyway. By making “harm to others” a
legitimate reason for state interference, the legitimate powers of the state could extend and
outweigh the need to value individuality. 

Another traditionalist indictment against Mill’s principle of liberty is towards his account that
actions should only be restricted if those actions are “other-regarding” and effect other people,
and not if those actions are “self-regarding”, which affect only the individual themselves and
therefore should be exercised with absolute freedom. The traditionalist criticize that we cannot
clearly distinguish between the two actions Mill propose, as it is inevitable that people’s actions
affect others because people are not entirely secluded, therefore in theory any individual act can
cause harm to others. As Fitzjames Stephen puts it, “I think that the attempt to distinguish
between self-regarding acts and acts which regard others, is like an attempt to distinguish
between acts which happen in time and acts which happen in space. Every act happens at some
time and in some place, and in like manner every act that we do either does or may affect both
ourselves and others. I think, therefore, that the distinction (which, by the way, is not at all a
common one) is altogether fallacious and unfounded.”

In response to traditionalist criticism, revisionists attempt to clarify ‘self-regarding’ acts and

‘other-regarding’ acts. In J.C. Reese’s essay, A Re-reading of Mill on Liberty, he distinguishes
other-regarding actions to affect other people’s interests in their moral rights, that of liberty and
security.  Therefore, the “harm to others” implied in On Liberty refers to the harm of an
individual’s moral interests, resulting in injustice towards the individual.  As such, revisionist
argue that ‘self-regarding’ actions can be clearly distinguished from ‘other-regarding actions’
and support Mill’s harm principle in that actions can be restricted if they are injurious to the
moral rights of security and liberty of other people.

The significant notion about human nature Mill makes in On Liberty, is how people can best
understand and learn about their own opinions and activities from accepting challenging and
opposing opinions and arguing against them. One can only faithfully understand their opinion by
defending it. This belief, based on the social utility of the individual is significantly disputed by
traditionalists who argue people may not be able to best understand their opinions and values
from dissent. For example, people who have different vocabulary for discussing moral and
political issues may simply argue past each other, rather than challenge opposing opinions and
therefore a diversity of opinions may not be socially beneficiary as it cannot increase utility, or
happiness, which Mill defends as the essence of liberty. Mill’s claim about the need for dissent in
order to truly understand one’s own opinions is hereby less convincing.

It is easy to see how J.S. Mill’s defence of liberty is highly contentious in views. As explained in
this essay, Mill’s prominent works such as On Liberty, gather traditionalist criticism as well as
revisionist support. While traditionalists criticize Mill’s defence of liberty from a utilitarian ethic,
revisionists encourage us to respect Mill’s work as a distinct process of developing liberalism.
Mill refuses to accept fully the utilitarian principles inherited from his father and Bentham, nor
reject them for his belief in ‘individual sovereignty’ , but rather attempts to settle the two
antagonistic viewpoints to defend liberty.