Mill's “On Liberty” is an academic work examining the presence of – and desire for – freedom in human nature and behavior, as well as the limits imposed on such. Mill writes this text from a bias of utilitarianism and fallibilism, because he simultaneously believes that: (1) the ultimate goal of human life – the purest of actions, in itself – is to bring the greatest of good to the greatest number, and that; (2) humans are an imperfect species and to fail to recognize this is to assume its infallibility, which Mill argues is false. As such, the following article will examine the relationship between freedom of thought and discussion, and freedom in general, as proposed by Mill. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay First and foremost, and fundamentally, one must understand what we are referring to when we discuss Mill's definition of liberty. However, a one-dimensional definition cannot be offered to such a multi-dimensional concept and, necessarily, an analysis must be conducted of Mill's thought processes in order to understand his perception of freedom, in its truest form. Almost immediately, Mill asserts that On Liberty will be about “civil or social liberty: the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual” (Mill 1859, p. 1). We can thus see that Mill – working in a way that falls within classical philosophical practices – himself chose to demonstrate what freedom is by first understanding exactly what it is not. Such a claim is further verified by Mill's reference to the "struggle between liberty and authority" (p. 1), thus alluding to the claim that: liberty is the phenomenon of action – or of thought – undertaken by the choice of the individual without any involvement of authority. .Mill develops this idea by briefly exploring changes in the general perception of freedom throughout history. At this point, it is interesting to note that Mill appears to consider only Western cultures – drawing on evidence from “Greece, Rome and England” (p. 1) – rather than a holistic analysis considering diverse and global cultures. Regardless, Mill develops his initial hypothesis – about what freedom is – by identifying key moments in history that he believes shaped and developed this concept into its current form. These points are: (1) the transition from a body of authority seen as “in a necessarily antagonistic position to the people it ruled” (p. 1) to an imposition of limits on said authority; (2) the emergence of a “new demand for elected and temporary leaders” (p. 2); (3) the revelation that “leaders should be identified with the people, that their interests and their will should be the interest and will of the nation” (p. 3), and; (4) the eventual predominance of a democratic republic – “popular government” (p. 3) – and the “notion that people need not limit their power over themselves” (p. 3). Although, superficially, this timeline may lead to If we believe that Mill perceives the balance between liberty and authority to be achieved, it is clear that Mill recognizes the flaws in said political structure; “Terms such as 'self-government' and 'people power' do not represent the true situation” (pp. 3-4). As such, Mill identifies the danger that the freedom of the majority will suppress the freedom of the minority; “Furthermore, the will of the people practically means the will of the party at hand.most numerous or most active of the people – the majority” (p. 4). These essentially lay the groundwork for Mill's recognition of “social tyranny” and “political oppression” (p. 4) as two forces equally capable of suppressing freedom. Therefore, Mill introduces the following dilemma: liberty – which was originally conceived as freedom from the interference of authority, government, in the lives of the people – cannot be actualized .when the freedom of one replaces and prevents the freedom of the other. This logic precedes Mill's statement that: "All that makes existence valuable for any one depends on the application of constraints to the actions of others" (p. 5), which complements Mill's earlier assertion that “people do not need to limit their activities”. power over themselves” (p. 3). As convoluted as it may seem, these premises are the foundations on which Mill articulates the complexity of the nature of individual and societal freedom existing simultaneously; The paradoxical nature of humanity is such that: we each claim to want freedom for all in our lives, but refuse to recognize the fact that such a desire leaves us, individually, vulnerable to intrusion into our lives by another exercising his own freedom. Understanding this, let's consider for a moment the above through Mill's biases as a utilitarian and fallibist: if an action is only considered beneficial when it is instigated for the greatest benefit of the greatest number and the Humans are fallible and therefore incapable of knowing – with absolute certainty. certainty - whether or not an action will actually bring a benefit. So, doesn't it seem that humans would be incapable of using their freedom – individual or societal – by means deemed beneficial? What then is freedom itself worth if it does not benefit the masses? In response to this apparent contradiction with his own argument, Mill asserts that "over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign" (p. 9) and that, as "man is a being progressive” (p. 10), restricting one's freedoms will not only: (1) prevent the immediate release of developments beneficial to humanity, but also: (2) limit the potential for future developments. One could object to this claim by simply rearranging the premises above, replacing “restriction” with tolerate, “prevent” with allow, “beneficial” with detrimental, and “limit” with increase. However, it is likely that Mill would be the first to remind anyone that a similar argument is easier to compare to an authoritative ruler of ancient Greece (as discussed previously) than to any ruler of the modern world, thus refuting This argument is no longer relevant. Yet Mill admits that decisions made through one person's freedom can sometimes hinder – or restrict – the decisions another is able to make through their freedom. Thus, he introduces the principle of harm to others (p. 9-10), essentially asserting that every individual deserves the freest of freedoms up to the point where his actions, or inactions, directly affect another. Then, he argues, it is justified that “sanctions of law or opinion” (p. 7) are involved. Considering all of the above, Mill's final definition of “the proper region of human liberty” (p. 11) can be understood. This definition is as follows: Human freedom exists in three parts. First of all; freedom over the inner realm of consciousness – thought, feeling, opinion and other similar moral sentiments – which inherently encompasses the freedom to write and publish such opinions. Second; freedom to act according to saidconscience, to shape one's life according to one's own character and not according to societal directives. Thirdly; the freedom of equality, so that all people have – and use – the aforementioned freedoms equally (individually and en masse) without fear of oppression (pp. 11-12). Simply put, the three dimensions that Mill uses to define freedom are: (1) morality, the freedom to decide for oneself what is right and wrong; (2) action, the ability to live one's life according to one's own morality, and; (3) unity, freedom for all to use their own freedoms in community without persecution. Mill reiterates the importance of these assertions: "no society in which these freedoms are not, on the whole, respected is free" (p. 12); this freedom, he believes, depends largely on maintaining of an appropriate balance between “individual independence and social control” (p. 5) – thus avoiding “a social tyranny more formidable than many types of political oppression” (p. 4) -. Now, before we move forward, it is fundamental to recognize that Mill assumes that all humans are fundamentally good, morally just people. Drawing on Socratic ideals, Mill believes that a human being's soul – its essence, its purest form – is in no way foul, vindictive, manipulative or unjustly critical. Rather, he believes that each of these attitudes can be learned – because reality corrupts the soul – and can be unlearned, or more precisely: that kindness and purity can be memorized. Recognizing this assumption made by Mill, it is easy to understand why he maintains that freedom of thought and discussion is the most essential of all freedoms; that complete freedom of opinion and expression is the foundation on which any free society must be built. Mill states that: "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and one person were of a contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person than they, if she had the power, would be right to silence. humanity” (p. 16). As such, he develops his argument to consider three potential scenarios of a silenced opinion: (1) the silenced opinion is potentially true; (2) the suppressed opinion is potentially false, and; (3) the suppressed opinion is neither entirely true nor false, but rather a component of the truth, a missing aspect of the current opinion. By assuming that any one of these three scenarios is the reality of any situation, Mill ignores the importance of each of them. In fact, Mill asserts that “all silence on discussion is an assumption of infallibility,” because it is assumed that “their certainty is the same as absolute certainty” (p. 17). Statements that are consistent with Mill's bias as a fallibilist and emphasize Mill's view that: it does not matter whether or not an opinion is true or false, it still deserves to exist. The logic of this statement arises from the fact that "there is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true because, despite all possibility of contesting it, it has not been refuted, and presuming its truth with the aim of not to allow its refutation”; any opinion that prevails over all contested perspectives can be considered true up to the point where it is proven false by counterargument, so long as it is subject to such counterarguments; “it is only through the collision of opposing opinions that the rest of the truth has a chance of being furnished” (p. 50). Participating in this process – by arguing hypotheses, questioning what is taken as fact, and actively seeking to broaden one's horizons – is, Mill asserts, the only means by which humans acquire wisdom..