John Stuart Mill: On Liberty

Résumé du document

In the first chapter of his essay On Liberty, Mill emphasizes on the importance of the civil and social grounds of liberty, as opposed to the « Liberty of the Will ». Therefore his work deals with the opposition between his concept of liberty and the needed authority of the state. At first Mill argues that men were keen on being governed in order to be protected against tyranny. Then they started to advocate the case for an independent and revocable power. As a result Mill states that the promotion of democracy has become the priority of human beings and made the limitation of state's power a useless struggle. However such a move towards democratic principles should not be considered as a decisive progress on the way to liberty, since Mill adds that the majority may actually act in accordance with what he names the “tyranny of the majority”.

Indeed the interests of the majority may not be in adequacy with those of other groups or minorities and thus may hamper the freedom of those latter. Furthermore the concept of majority does not necessarily refer to the “largest part of the people” but rather to the most active one in terms of democratic participation. Mill insists on the fact that state's power and collective opinion do have to act within the limits of the law. It is therefore through the law that one may act against another to limit his liberty if this latter has harmed anyone. “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”.

Extraits

[...] No one can deny the horrific nature of their regimes which did not have any democratic roots and were not based on the approval of any clear majority. Another interesting point refers to Mill's argument over the fact that any thinking individual who has the ability to rationalise should have an inalienable right to self-determination. It is not a straightforwardly utilitarian thing to say. After all Bentham used to say that human rights were “nonsense on stilts” and here is Mill proposing just that. The thing is that Mill's conception of utilitarianism is different to Bentham's. [...]

[...] But the self-determination part seems very liberal. For instance even a grown, intelligent adult can need protection from himself at certain times. If they are addicted to drugs, or perhaps wish to commit suicide after some terrible tragedy which has befallen them. But to be fair to Mill he probably does not have instances like this in mind when he writes. I guess he is talking more about “victimless crimes”, as perceived by people who would like to see their values enforced, such as religious bigots for instance. [...]

[...] 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”. Mill states that one is free to act according to one's desire as long as he does not infringe on the freedom of another. One should be as free as possible to choose the way of life he profoundly desires and his liberty over himself is absolute. Additionally he outlines the respect of three fundamental freedoms for men to be considered as free: “Liberty of thought and feeling”, “Liberty of tastes and pursuits” and “liberty of combination among individuals”, namely freedom to unite. [...]

[...] The introductory itself is clearly a very political piece designed to solve the problem of the society at the time. However I do not know whether Mill thinks these liberal values are timeless and can be applied to all societies. My point of view is that if he were alive today he would be more utilitarian. References J. S. Mill; "On Liberty"; Elibron Classic Series; 2006 Printed in London. [...]

[...] Then they started to advocate the case for an independent and revocable power. As a result Mill states that the promotion of democracy has become the priority of human beings and made the limitation of state's power a useless struggle. However such a move towards democratic principles should not be considered as a decisive progress on the way to liberty, since Mill adds that the majority may actually act in accordance with what he names the “tyranny of the majority”. [...]