Modernity is therefore a movement that is constantly changing in relation to various social forces with key ideals being social and political self-determination. ‘The time will come when the sun will shine only on free men who have no master but their reason.’(E.Cassirer: Rousseau, Kant and Goethe: New York: 1963). The natural rights of all individuals and the right to freedom are all based around the concept of modernity. Modernity can be seen as an education process for man in the use of reason. Individual self-determination and the idea that everyone can better their position in the world is fundamental to modern thought. Essentially after all political and intellectual revolution human life is better off had they not occurred. Modernity therefore rejects feudalistic practices and promotes an exploration of freedom and anti-doctrinal basis for authority. Modernity has its roots in the Enlightenment period with the programme of Enlightenment being, ‘one of hostility to religion and as the search for freedom and progress achieved by critical use of reason to change mans relations with himself and society.’(Dorinda Outrann: The Enlightenment: pg 4)
The most distinctively, ‘modern’ aspect of, ‘On Liberty’ is the emphasis placed upon the individual and the idea of individual liberty. This is a modern concept in the sense that individuals are moving away from a classified group towards more individual ways of thinking and showing initiative. Although the concept, viewed in isolation, is not overwhelmingly distinctive, the amount of unchecked freedom assigned to the individual, in Mill, is. Allowing extreme diversity and spontaneity is accommodated fro in Mill with a very laissez-faire approach to government intervention. In succeeding in being modern this concept raises a variety of problems through lack of restriction and potential for conflict. The, ‘principle of individuality’ is central to Mill. ‘Understood in this sense, then, the principle of individuality will emphasize the importance of those reflexive operations-self-development, self-improvement, self-formation, self-respect, conscience and honour.’(R.P Anschutz: pg 20) These concepts are very individual centric and propose breaking the ties of tradition and custom. Mill viewed the individual as tabula rasa with society shaping the individual through custom and norms. ‘Thus the development of the individual is to be all a matter of freedom and spontaneity- of unfolding as a flower unfolds- unhindered by anything in the way of training or self-denial.’(R.P Anschutz: pg 22) The level of individuality is very high in, ‘On Liberty’ with man being viewed as a progressive being. Mill is willing to accept diversity of ideas and actions regardless of their implications for other individuals. Viewing the individual in an isolated state, to act and think in any way he pleases has major implications for the role of the state in society.
‘Human Nature is not a machine to be built after a model and set to do exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree which requires to grow and develop itself on all sides according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing.’(R.P Anschutz)
Mill also is distinctively modern in attacking the four dominant trends in liberal thought up to the mid nineteenth century. Mill attacks the idea of natural rights as proposed by Locke. The notion of rights being linked to a religious text is not acceptable for Mill as an anti-doctrinal thinker. Discussion and debate should be promoted as opposed to living in accordance with rules laid out in a book. ‘Rights are non-sense upon stilts.’(Jeremy Bentham) Political rights put forward by Tom Paine are controversial for Mill because he feels that liberty should take preference over democracy. Mill does not like the concept of democracy because it allows for tyranny of the majority. When Mill argues against the idea of democracy he moves away from a modern outlook on government with preference for rule by the wise as opposed to the majority. Freedom of the individual is viewed as the one thing that is not contingent. The notion of utility in Mill is not acceptable in the circumstance that the way of measuring the rationality of a policy is the way it advances the greater benefit for the greatest number of people therefore overriding individual liberty.
The amount of liberty that Mill allows within society is a very modern concept often open to criticism. The autonomy of the individual is key and this can be illustrated through his defence of Mormonism and the idea of prostitution. Mill is a very pragmatic thinker with his ideas on prostitution be dominated by pragmatic reason. Mills idea of freedom of expression is overwhelming. ‘Over his own body and mind the individual is sovereign.’(J.S. Mill: On Liberty) The role of government is minimal with intervention coming only in extreme circumstance when major harm has been caused. ‘That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.’(J.S. Mill: On Liberty) Mill is extremely tolerant of diverse ideas and practices with a common response to actions indifferent to certain groups being to ignorance or avoidance. Mill appears to be very liberal in terms of individual freedom with state intervention only being necessary in major incidents of harm. ‘Mill would appear to be sanctioning the rejection of any laws of censorship, including those affecting pornography, and many forms of libel and potential sedition.’(Iain Hampsher-Monk: pg 369) Mill suggests that Mormonism should be accepted provided the commune is not causing harm to others or preventing people from leaving. This is based on the idea that people who have been brought up in such a society do not know any other way of living. Mill thinks that it is preposterous for a foreign community to try to physically prevent the practice of a religion or ideology. ‘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 marriage institution.’(J.S. Mill: pg 922) The amount of toleration and diversity allowed for in Mill is as distinctively modern as the concept of individual liberty and spontaneity.
‘It is difficult to see on what principles but those of tyranny they can be prevented from living there under what laws they please, provided they commit no aggression on other nations, and allow perfect freedom of departure to those who are dissatisfied with their ways.’(J.S. Mill: pg 922)
Mills answer to prostitution would therefore be a pragmatic one in the sense that it would be physically impossible to prevent the practice and eliminate it completely from society. As long as prostitution is not causing any major harm to society it can be tolerated. Mill is in favour of very little government intervention trade and the movement of goods and services. Mill wants to prevent any restrictions being placed on trade with restraint being viewed as an evil in itself.
In exploring what it is that is distinctively modern about, ‘On Liberty,’ there are a variety of problems that arise that appear to run against the grain of modernity. Although Mill appears to be very individual centric and based on individual liberty, there are some themes in Mill such as the attack on democracy, the potential for conflict through diversity and liberal views of no restrictions on trade that cause various problems for modernity. Mill pursues the line of laissez-faire government with very little intervention in society that might infringe on the liberty of the individual. ‘The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.’(J Wolff: An Introduction to Political Philosophy: pg 145) Mill is very cautious of democracy because he feels that democracy is just as open to tyranny as within an authoritarian system. In preference of democracy Mill would prefer government of the wise however he still maintains that a governing group of individuals who claim they know what is best for society is outrageous and should guarded against. It is the attack on democracy that moves against the grain of modernity with no clear ideal form of government and rule being offered by Mill as a substitute in On Liberty. Government of the wise and more experienced takes society back to feudalistic hierarchy. ‘The fact that, ‘the people,’ make the laws does not rule out the possibility that the majority will pass laws which oppress, or are otherwise unfair to, the minority. Somehow the minority must be protected.’(J Wolff: pg 145)
Another issue that is raised when exploring what is distinctively modern in On Liberty is that the state that Mill creates for the pursuit of ideas and spontaneity, potentially could create large levels of conflict. The diversity and individual orientated state that Mill desires offers huge potential for adversary within society as there essentially is no system of checks and balances to guard against over enthusiasm. Punishment of actions is only considered after actions have taken place as opposed to a system of checks and balances to provide preventative remedy. In enacting internal energy and freedom of the individual there can be the potential for using such creativity in the wrong manner and direction. This was a central concern for Kant who realised that the unchecked nature of the individual has potential anarchy and disorder. Utility is central to the Liberal approach in promoting the greatest good to the greatest number. In doing so the minority are oppressed which is argued against in On Liberty which offers and ideological clash in Mill.
The extent of individual liberty and lack of restriction is extremely modern in Mill as well his views on censorship, education and religion. However in being modern in certain aspects Mill still has one foot in the past in terms of his preference of government of the wise and his attack of the concept of democracy. Although Mill is a modern thinker he appears to go against liberal tradition and thought on utility, which raises questions over his modern outlook. There are key concepts in Mill that are modern however these concepts raise issues and problems that run counter to the modernity movement.
