Mill saw the state he lived in as edging towards that of an unfair balance, wherein society as an entity held too much power over the accepted thoughts and actions of the individual, identifiable as the ‘tyranny of the majority’, whereby not only political institutions hold tyranny over the public, but the force of the public itself, more specifically public opinion, becomes so stifling to the individual that they lose the ability to think for themselves, or at least feel the need to hide their views from others in they don’t fit in with the consensus of that society. As Mill says, “Popular opinions…are often true, but seldom or never the whole truth” (‘On Liberty’, Ch.2). And Mill did not just refer to this notion of tyranny of the majority in relation to laws and social courtesies, but also in relation to personal and moral matters. Mill believed that one could not be punished for holding a different moral belief to that of the majority, so long as the belief, or any action caused by it, affects only the individual in question and poses no threat to any others.
Mill believed that tyranny of the majority could come about as society naturally seeks conformity from its members, as this makes social control easier and it was, particularly at the time of Mill’s writing, widely regarded that a controlled society was a happier, safer one. Mill thought this to be an unacceptable state for society to best function in and argued that society should seek to control or influence only the actions or thoughts of others if they directly affect or harm it or some of it’s members. Otherwise, diversity should positively be encouraged – the liberty to exist as a free thinking individual in society is essential for progress of society as a whole as well as the individual himself. Mill argued that ‘forced conformity’ stops the possibility of people learning from each other, even if this learning comes about through seeing the mistakes others make or disagreeing with other opinions. By being allowed to see weakness in others, the individuals will continue to strive to better themselves, rather than simply being allowed to stagnate in a society where everyone simply strives to be alike.
Others have criticised Mill for being too permissive – one might think, in the kind of society Mill is proposing, that expressions of racial or homophobic abuse should be tolerated and even encouraged, as, according to Mill, no ideas – even if they are of those in the minority – should be stifled. However, Mill accounts for this by making an important distinction between being allowed to express ones opinions and being able to act upon them. While expressing ones opinion may offend others is acceptable, but that it may cause direct harm to come to them is not. This is where Mill’s harm principle comes into play, and the admission by Mill that some limitations must exist. As he states in the text “The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make a nuisance of himself to other people” (‘On Liberty’, Ch.3). Mill illustrates this in the text by showing how even expressing an opinion in the wrong context can cause harm to others, which is when it should be stopped. He uses this example; “An opinion that corn-dealers are starvers of the poor…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.” (‘On Liberty’, Ch.3)
With this, Mill states that he is not advocating a kind of freedom without consideration of consequence; rather, the individual is self-governing insofar as their opinions and actions reflect only on themselves. The benefits of individualism and freedom of opinion, for Mill, are too great for restrictions to be placed, however harm cannot be allowed to come to members of society through the free action of others. Mill goes on to say, “No one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions…Acts, of whatever kind, which, without justifiable cause, do harm to others, may be, and in more important cases absolutely require to be, controlled by…the active interference of mankind.” (‘On Liberty’, Ch.3)
So, by acknowledging that the expression of ones opinion can cause an adverse reaction, Mill expressly places a limitation on this kind of liberty – if man wishes to remain sovereign over his own mind and body, he must exercise good judgement and practice tolerance when acting on his opinions, or when expressing opinions that he may be aware will cause others to act negatively and cause possible harm to others. Crucially, if an individual is willing to speak their mind at the risk of offending others, they must accept that others will do the same and learn from such disagreements without violent, or any other kind of harmful, reaction
For Mill, the idea of self-sovereignty and individualism is integral to his wish for social progress. Although some limitation must be in placed for the basic protection of others, Mill believed that if individuals are given the opportunity to, and encouraged to, express themselves and learn from others who do the same, thus improving them, then society as a whole would also improve. Mill clarifies his argument for this by breaking it down into two simple principles – firstly, that people cannot be held accountable to society for actions that concern only themselves, meaning that society can express disapproval but cannot restrict such actions in any way; and secondly, that people can be held accountable for those actions that do adversely affect others, and can in turn be punished by legal or social means for those actions.
Although some have criticised Mill for being vague about the limitations of this kind of liberty, with reference to the opening quote and the essay from which it is taken, it is undeniable that Mill makes important points about how society needs a degree of freedom and nonconformity in order for society and its members to evolve. Mill believed that only through dissent, disagreement and subsequent debate can society recognise its flaws and change for the better, thus producing the greater good for society, the ultimate good for the future, truly the utilitarian ideal.
References
Mill, J.S. ‘Autobiography’, 1873, Online edition (http://www.utilitarianism.com/millauto/seven.html)
Mill, J.S., ‘On Liberty and other Essays’ (Ed: John Gray), Oxford University Press, 1991.
Bibliography
Mill, J.S. ‘Autobiography’, 1873, Online edition ()
Mill, J.S., ‘Essential Works’, New York, 1961.
Mill, J.S., ‘On Liberty and other Essays’ (Ed: John Gray), Oxford University Press, 1991.
