Some of Mill’s strongest opinions are contained in his views on issues of freedom of thought and of opinion. In ‘On Liberty’ Mill attempts to justify the importance of this freedom by showing its social benefits, taking the view that diversity of opinion is positive for society. Mill's argument that the opposing opinion may be true brings up some important points. First, it highlights that Mill believes that moral truths do exist. Therefore in defending liberty Mill does not say that all opinions are equally valid. Mill is not saying that all things can be true according to their circumstances. Instead he is simply saying that any single idea might be true, and that for this reason no idea can be dismissed since truth is a benefit to progress.
Mill also tries to show the contingency of popular beliefs about truth while going to great lengths not to actually state that any popular views about things like religion are wrong. To accomplish this he observes that in the past people have been persecuted for what is now believed to be true. Consequently Mill creates a logical situation in which anyone reading must accept that if they support persecuting "false" views, then they are required to accept their own persecution if in the minority on a certain issue. Mill is thereby able to reject the persecution of "false" views without condemning modern views as being false.
In his chapter on individuality as one of the elements of well being in ‘On Liberty’, Mill highlights the importance of individual freedoms and liberties including those of conscience, opinion, thought and pursuits. Yet he goes on to state: "The liberty of the individual must thus far be limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people" (p.55). Mill recognized that liberty had to have boundaries. This is best illustrated in his example of the corn dealer: "An opinion that corn dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard" (p. 55). A more recent example of this situation outlined by Mill could be found in the restrictions on free speech the United States Supreme Court has conceded, in which it has been made illegal for somebody to shout "Fire" in a crowded public place unless there actually a fire. In other words, such speech is not protected for its own sake as it may cause people harm unnecessarily. But Mill is not suggesting that free speech should be limited to only those cases when such freedom of speech could lead to others being physically harmed. Rather, he also believes in the protection of property. Such limits on liberty intended to protect private property are consistent within a capitalist order where the legal system privileges private ownership. Mill takes the view that the rights of the corn dealer to do business are more justifiable than the free speech rights of the "mob”. Thus an individual's liberty has to be restricted if the freedoms it involves pose a danger to the prevailing capitalist system.
Mill continues by discussing the limits and authority of society over the individual, defending and outlining his "harm principle", the theory that actions should only be punished when they cause harm others. Perhaps the most basic issue in this chapter is whether Mill's harm principle actually makes sense. Mill acknowledges that people are not fully isolated from society, and that their actions can affect others. In principle then, one could make a case that any particular activity causes such harm to other people that the need to respect individuality is outweighed. Is it unfairly arbitrary that Mill therefore limits social intervention to those actions that directly violate obligations? Perhaps more importantly, does Mill leave too much room for someone to say that it would be acceptable to limit any time it could harm society in any way?
In response to these questions, Mill would likely remind the reader that his approach is operating under a broadly construed conception of social good. In the third chapter he aimed to show the beneficial effects of nonconformity. Any social interest in restricting actions would therefore have to overcome the broad social value of individuality. While Mill's utilitarian approach leaves open the possibility that social interest could require major limitations on freedom, his discussions in previous chapters about the social value of liberty make this possibility unlikely. The reason his standard for "harm" is so high is that the good that comes from individuality is so socially beneficial.
Mill points out that cultures regularly declare perfectly legitimate activities to be immoral. Therefore if somebody claims it acceptable to punish bad activities he must also accept that others have the right to do the same to him. Mill uses examples like the unfairness of banning pork in Muslim countries and the injustice of banning polygamy. He proves how the fallibility of society is an important aspect of Mill's defence of liberty of action.
Mill's discussion is also interesting in the ways in which he leaves some openings for social criticism of actions. Such criticism is appropriate when it cannot be helped; it is simply natural that people will find some activities to be distasteful and will therefore judge the action inappropriate. However, Mill sets boundaries on any punitive action emerging from this criticism. Just as Mill believes opinions must be free while actions are subject to at least some regulation, he gives free rein to criticism while limiting punishment, an action.
One idea worth considering is whether a certain degree of punishment of distasteful activity might also be a natural human reaction. Mill may leave doors open for critique by basing his argument on what it is "natural" for humans to do.
The very capricious nature of humanity seems to be something that Mill values highly. Mill believes that human desires are not to be suppressed and molded to fit a doctrine or societal ideal, but rather followed and explored. He decrees that anything that suppresses the ability of humans to be unique is tyrannical, whether it is a code of conduct or a religion. The original thought and spontaneity that people can have are immeasurably important for new discoveries and new truths. Geniuses are products of this spontaneous thought, they are not conformists, but those that have been allowed to wander with their ideas and explore the possibilities. Eccentricity, something that is often frowned upon by society, is the key to genius behavior. It is that departure from the normal that allows new perspectives to be seen and a happier society to exist.
Mill argues that a society must continue to encourage liberty so that people of exceptional character may develop. "People of genius...are always likely to be a small minority...and are more individual than any other people" (p. 64). He maintains that when these people are allowed to develop, the whole society benefits because they can lead and instruct the masses. "The general average of mankind are...moderate in intellect" (p. 69), so "the initiation of all wise or noble things comes and must come from individuals" (p. 66). Mill's ideas regarding individual liberty are not intended to be universal, and many of his views highlighted in ‘On Liberty’ seem elitist. Foreign populations and the lower working classes of his own society are excluded, and ideas of "individualism" are seemingly exclusive for the middle classes and bourgeoisie. His views indicate he believes liberty should only be extended as to allow special individuals to emerge. Mill argues liberty and individualism are not intended for the majority but reserved for an exceptional few.
In contrast to Mill’s elitist and discriminatory views on freedom, Jean-Jacques Rousseau was one of the first modern to seriously attack the institution of private property, and is subsequently considered a precursor of modern socialism and Communism.
Rousseau saw liberty in terms of moral freedoms and civil/political freedoms, which Isaiah Berlin referred to as Rousseau’s positive view of liberty, his ability to do something positive or worthwhile. Moral freedom is defined by Rousseau as an individual’s capacity for rational self-direction. Rousseau believed in people having individual liberty from selfish wants and a clear knowledge of the interests and concerns of his/her community. He supported the encouragement of a general will or collective interest throughout the whole of society and believed it was only then that an individual could be released from the chains of society and attain ‘true freedom’. However, moral freedom could only be attained by an individual being in harmony and helping within the community, which would eventually result in individuals acting according to principles laid down by his own reason and conscience.
Civil or political freedom is classified as an individual’s condition of acting as a self-governing citizen capable of living under social and political conditions that he himself has helped to mould. Rousseau no longer wanted social and political organisation characterised by relationships of domination and subordination. Instead he believed individuals could live under laws that they had imposed upon themselves. Unlike Mill, Rousseau saw no inherent conflict between individual freedom and obedience to law.
Like Locke and Hobbes before him, Rousseau similarly prescribed his state of self-government by employing a social contract to explain the processes by which individuals agree to limit their natural liberty in order to submit to a higher collective authority. Nevertheless, Rousseau’s idea of the new state is dependent on individual’s voluntary agreement to sovereign authority and their preservation of legitimate share in that cooperative authority.
The 17th-century British philosopher John Locke similarly followed the idea of a strict social contract with regard to his ideas on political freedom. Likewise to Mill, Locke was an empiricist, addressing the limits of what we can understand about the nature of reality, holding that our understanding of reality is ultimately derived from what we have experienced through our senses. The political propositions of his theories include his ideas that all people are born equal and that only education can free people from the subjugation of tyranny. In contrast to Mill, Locke believed that government had a moral duty to guarantee that individuals always preserved sovereignty over their own rights, including ownership of property resulting from their own labour.
John Locke's ‘The Second Treatise of Government’ and John Stuart Mill's ‘On Liberty’ are both influential literary works which while outlining the abstract structure of each philosophers ideal state present two divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. Locke and Mill views differ regarding the limits of freedom man ought to have in political society due to the fact their views conflict regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behaviour, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies.
In ‘The Second Treatise of Government’, John Locke states his belief that all men exist in "a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and person as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man. " Locke believes man exists in a state of nature, therefore existing in a state of irrepressible liberty which has only the law of nature to restrict it. However Locke states that man should not be allowed to destroy himself or any other being in his possession unless completely necessary to. Locke emphasises individual ability and opportunity to own and profit from property as being necessary to be free. However, in ‘On Liberty’ John Stuart Mill’s view on liberty is stated as: "...the freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others: the persons combining being supposed to be of full age, and not forced and or deceived." John Locke believes that men should be virtually unrestricted and free in political society. According to Locke the only freedoms men should lose when entering into a political society are "equality, liberty and executive power they have in the state of nature into the hands of society." In Locke's ideal society this fails to limit or remove any freedom from the individual, it only removes the responsibility of protecting these freedoms from the individual, and instead places them on the state.