John Stuart Mill: On Liberty
(a) Explain Mill's statement that the subject of his essay is not the liberty of the will,
but civil or social liberty.
At the beginning of the essay On Liberty, Mill states that the subject of his writing is not the
liberty of the will but civil or social liberty. He defines social liberty as "the nature and limits of
the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual." By that, he
means he will examine the power with which society can limit an individual. He claims that
liberty of the will, so metaphysical freedom that lets people make their own choices is not as
important as social liberty. Due to a more progressive society, where people are more
civilized, he believes it is essential to talk about the issue of power that society has over
individuals. Mill first describes historical societies where political rulers usually did not govern
by their people's will. This was later developed into a different kind of tyranny that Mill calls
"tyranny of the majority". He explains this as a concept where the majority oppresses the
minority, so it imposes its will upon them. Another way society can tyrannize its people is the
power of public opinion. He claims that people should be protected from prevailing public
opinion that can impose its values on others; thus, in his essay, he's also trying to find a way
to limit this power. Mill firmly believes that society has so much power over the individual that
it can control an individual more than he/she can control him/herself. He disagrees with how
such societies work and claims that they should not interfere in an individual's liberty if the
person causes no harm to others. Throughout the essay, he argues that society can only
exercise authority over individuals if their behaviour harms other people. Examining the
power of society, the "tyranny of the majority" issue, the effect of public opinion on individuals
and how society, in general, interferes with a person's liberty, is how Mill uses the concept of
civil or social liberty in his essay.
(b) Evaluate Mill's statement that the subject of his essay is not the liberty of the will,
but civil or social liberty.
Mill claims that the subject of his essay is civil or social liberty rather than liberty of the will.
Throughout the essay, he uses the idea of the "harm principle" to answer the question of
how society should be limited in interfering with individuals. He explains this idea by saying
that "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."
Making this claim, he is giving an individual the freedom of doing whatever he/she wants as
long as their actions do not harm others. Since society cannot interfere, the individual has
the freedom of choice, whereas Mill points out their own free will. People here can make
decisions or actions independently, choosing to harm others or not, but at the end of the day,
the principle that is emphasized here is based on metaphysical freedom. The harm principle
seems to not be about social liberty but rather liberty of the will. However, Mill also mentions
the principle of utility, on which the harm principle is primarily based on. It states that people
should only do those things that bring the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest
number of people. His claims show that his defending liberty is not based on metaphysical
claims but rather on utility and what is best for mankind. He's explaining why social liberty
benefits both individuals and society. So although people can indeed do whatever they want
(a) Explain Mill's statement that the subject of his essay is not the liberty of the will,
but civil or social liberty.
At the beginning of the essay On Liberty, Mill states that the subject of his writing is not the
liberty of the will but civil or social liberty. He defines social liberty as "the nature and limits of
the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual." By that, he
means he will examine the power with which society can limit an individual. He claims that
liberty of the will, so metaphysical freedom that lets people make their own choices is not as
important as social liberty. Due to a more progressive society, where people are more
civilized, he believes it is essential to talk about the issue of power that society has over
individuals. Mill first describes historical societies where political rulers usually did not govern
by their people's will. This was later developed into a different kind of tyranny that Mill calls
"tyranny of the majority". He explains this as a concept where the majority oppresses the
minority, so it imposes its will upon them. Another way society can tyrannize its people is the
power of public opinion. He claims that people should be protected from prevailing public
opinion that can impose its values on others; thus, in his essay, he's also trying to find a way
to limit this power. Mill firmly believes that society has so much power over the individual that
it can control an individual more than he/she can control him/herself. He disagrees with how
such societies work and claims that they should not interfere in an individual's liberty if the
person causes no harm to others. Throughout the essay, he argues that society can only
exercise authority over individuals if their behaviour harms other people. Examining the
power of society, the "tyranny of the majority" issue, the effect of public opinion on individuals
and how society, in general, interferes with a person's liberty, is how Mill uses the concept of
civil or social liberty in his essay.
(b) Evaluate Mill's statement that the subject of his essay is not the liberty of the will,
but civil or social liberty.
Mill claims that the subject of his essay is civil or social liberty rather than liberty of the will.
Throughout the essay, he uses the idea of the "harm principle" to answer the question of
how society should be limited in interfering with individuals. He explains this idea by saying
that "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."
Making this claim, he is giving an individual the freedom of doing whatever he/she wants as
long as their actions do not harm others. Since society cannot interfere, the individual has
the freedom of choice, whereas Mill points out their own free will. People here can make
decisions or actions independently, choosing to harm others or not, but at the end of the day,
the principle that is emphasized here is based on metaphysical freedom. The harm principle
seems to not be about social liberty but rather liberty of the will. However, Mill also mentions
the principle of utility, on which the harm principle is primarily based on. It states that people
should only do those things that bring the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest
number of people. His claims show that his defending liberty is not based on metaphysical
claims but rather on utility and what is best for mankind. He's explaining why social liberty
benefits both individuals and society. So although people can indeed do whatever they want
