blog




  • Essay / Contradictions in 'On Liberty': Weaknesses in Mill's Pillars of Liberty

    In John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty', the idea of ​​liberty is examined through a lens applicable regardless of form of government. John Mill, son of James Mill, the father of utilitarianism, had a difficult childhood which strongly influenced his political ideologies. His tough, studious upbringing revolutionized the way his ideologies were formed, and he was very politically developed from a young age. His work bears the hallmarks of liberal political theory, emphasizing individualism, strong defense of individual freedom and rights, and a firm faith in laws intended to limit the worst human behavior. However, his work seems full of contradictions. His ideas of freedom and free speech are exclusive. While extolling the right to liberty for all, Mill's "On Liberty" limits the scope of liberty to certain classifications of people, political situations, and intentions of man. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Mill defined freedom by separating it into three seemingly overlapping areas; for him, freedom was embodied in the protection of the rights of the individual against tyrannical rulers. The first piece of freedom is that of the “inner realm of consciousness” (Mill 598). This covers freedom of thought and feeling, including opinion, morals and feelings. The second principle covers “freedom of tastes and activities” (Mill 598). Mill described this freedom as the ability to plan one's own life freely, without the hindrance of other individuals. The condition that applies to this freedom is that it can end in the event of violation of the freedoms of another individual. The third and final freedom distinguished was the ability to combine the freedoms of several individuals into a united front, so long as the intent of the united freedoms was safe. It is also implied that the union of liberties is voluntary. It is through these three forms that Mill defines freedom. To further illustrate the necessity of liberty in society, Mill states that no society “in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free, whatever its form of government” (Mill 598 ). With these words, Mill demonstrates his belief that society can only function under these circumstances. Although Mill's argument seems to rely on the idea that all human beings, regardless of their classification, deserve freedom, his argument is limited. Aside from the text, Mill's involvement in the British East India Company hinders his argument about the right to liberty. for all people. The British East India Company, known for its harsh colonization and involvement in the slave trade, was arguably a multinational corporation founded on restricting the freedom of others. According to Mill's own text, it is acceptable to "leave aside those backward states of society in which the race itself may be considered in its nonage" (Mill 597). A close examination of the text reveals that it applied primarily to white Europeans. This implicit racism does nothing to help Mill's ideology as a whole. To imply that a race may not deserve freedom simply because it is perceived to be behind the ruling race clearly violates the most fundamental element of Mill's argument. Another group excluded from Mill's freedoms includes the young and those still in need of state care (Mill 597). Mill supports the logic of this assertion by attributing the role of freedom to taking into accountresponsibility of the individual. If the individual needs to be protected from himself, this is the inherent role of freedom. However, the three principles of freedom do not apply to this subgroup of people. Mill states that "those who are still in a state where they need to be cared for by others must be protected against their own actions as well as against external harm" (Mill 597). Those who are incapable of reasoning, including the respective states' legal definition of minors, are deprived of the standardized liberty that Mill applies to all others. In accordance with Mill's theory, this freedom is seen only to be replaced by a different freedom of protection, but it does not follow the path that Mill set out for the rest of an acceptable society. Another limitation of Mill's principles of liberty appears in the political state. While the previous limitation concerned who the freedoms apply to, this limitation concerns how the freedom should be granted. In a political climate where there is a powerful majority and a dissident minority, power dynamics can be difficult to manage. To complicate matters further, Mill gets involved in the application of liberty to this specific situation. Mill states that self-government is more of a misnomer than an accurate depiction of people governing themselves. On the contrary, those “who exercise power are not always the same over whom it is exercised” (Mill 594). The will of the people is often misinterpreted as “the will of the most numerous or active part of the people…those who succeed in gaining acceptance as the majority” (Mill 594). Mill goes on to argue that the tyranny of the majority must be prohibited by the enforcement of individual liberties. It introduces the idea of ​​a system of majority rules and minority rights, strictly respected in modern democracies scattered across the world. In this sentiment, Mill addresses the ideas of positive and negative freedoms, which can be described as the freedom to do something and the freedom to be safe from others. It takes the negative liberty to prevent society from encroaching on the rights of the minority, while granting the positive liberty to the majority to assert the power they rightly claim, in accordance with a specific power dynamic. The protection of the individual against society is once again emphasized in Mill's language. Any “company can and does execute its own mandates; and if he gives bad mandates instead of good ones, or if he gives mandates in matters in which he should not interfere, he practices a social tyranny more formidable than many forms of political oppression” (Mill 596). He goes on to write that some protections from government are necessary, but also calls for protections against the will or opinion of the majority. This is closely related to Mill's first pillar of freedom, the right to the inner realm of conscience. Although Mill balances the positive and negative freedoms of society for the best of the individual, he still takes away the freedoms of one group to allow for the freedoms of others, something inherently contrary to his argument. The final contradiction found in Mill's "On Liberty" is the limitation imposed on man's intention. Although this belief is consistent with that of theorists before him, his ideology goes even further than those who preceded him. Mill seeks to limit man's freedoms based on the degree of intent to harm another being. This raises the question of limits. As with morality and norms, who should determine the limit of acceptable harm? Mill states that the only case in..