Mill on freedom Michael Lacewing Michael Lacewing The

Mill on freedom Michael Lacewing © Michael Lacewing

The Harm (aka Liberty) Principle • ‘The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. ’

What about self-regarding actions?

‘Harm’ • ‘Harm’ means harm to our interests. • The interests that count here are those that ought to be considered to be rights, those interests ‘which society ought to defend me in the possession of’. • Which interests should be rights is decided by utility, ‘but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of a man as a progressive being. • These permanent, progressive interests include freedom, the pursuit of truth, and the development of individual character.

‘Pursuing our own good in our own way’

Negative freedom • No one else may define our good (v. Plato) • Freedom is an individual good (v. Rousseau) • Mill thought external obstacles to freedom are the main concern of the state.

Positive freedom • Liberty must enable activity in order to be worthwhile; the final end is a better life.

Can utility defend liberty? • Connect freedom and individuality: – ‘the only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way’. • Connect individuality and utility: – ‘the free development of individuality is one of the leading essentials of wellbeing’. • So freedom is central to utility.

Utility and liberty • Individual utility: – autonomy is a key component of happiness. • Social utility: the ‘experiments of living’ individuals conduct are – a means of proving the worth of different modes of living; and – enable the genius of some people to introduce new good ideas in society.

Is liberty so central to utility? • But must we have as much autonomy as the Harm Principle gives us? • Not all societies that limited freedom were stagnant. • Does liberty ensure utility through the growth of rationality and knowledge of what is truly good? Frederick the Great of Prussi

Social tyranny • Tyranny is no longer the rulers dominating the people, because the people rule. • But the people who rule, even in a democracy, are not the people who are ruled: there is a majority and minority. The new danger is tyranny of the majority.

Social tyranny • Tyranny of the majority can lead to illiberal laws, e. g. against certain religions. • But it can also be social tyranny, through socially-endorsed preferences and ways of living, disapproval and offence: – It leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.