FREEDOM OF INDIVIDUALITY
A
Introduction
On Liberty
Mill, in his treatise On Liberty, published in 1859 concerns himself with the civil liberty, or the extent
to which the state can legitimately exercise power over the individual.
Individuality
Sensing a Victorian social climate whereby society was antagonistic to any departure from
conventional norms, Mill believed that individuality was in danger of becoming extinct, so attempts
to provide a robust defence of individuality in terms of negative liberty, in accordance with his
indirect utilitarian framework.
Individuality serves “utility in its largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a
progressive being,” engaging Mill’s bigger project of promoting individual and societal progress via
character development.
Critical to this is Mill’s distinction between lower and higher pleasures, which are qualitatively
superior and are engaged in during intellectual deliberation and analysis; Mill wants to create a
climate in which individuals can develop themselves in terms of the higher pleasures which will
consequently drive social progress.
Mill believes that modern democratic systems cannot defend individual liberties against tyranny of
the majority, which is more insidious than political tyranny, so an argument defending such
interests was necessary.
Chapters
In Chapter One Mill presents the Harm Principle, establishing that self-regarding actions ought not
be society’s business.
In Chapter Three Mill aims to defend this principle in relation to individuality, providing five
arguments for why expression should go unchecked by authority if it does not harm others,
highlighting its promotion of self-development and the appreciation of more valuable pleasures in
pursuits.
His argumentation is bifurcated into benefits to individuals and society, promoting utility.
Self
We Are All Different and Rational
Firstly, Mill provides two arguments for why individuality is best for the individual in terms of utility.
Firstly, Mill argues empirically that it is evident that not all individuals have different tastes and
desires, so a conformity of actions would not be appropriate in their individual promotion of
happiness.
Mill quotes von Humbolt, who contends that the purpose of man is the “highest and most
harmonious development of his powers to a complete and consistent whole.”
By analogy, humans are like a tree, not a machine, which “requires to grow and develop itself on all
sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing.”
While customs may provide useful guidance, individuals must appraise their rightness in relation to
their own circumstances and character through different experiments of living. Mill argues that
humans are autonomous and rational (but allows benign paternalism for people he deems to be
irrational including children and “backward races”), and, therefore, in choosing reflectively what
actions to engage in based on available evidence can assume full responsibility for their own beliefs
and actions, consequently developing and flourishing according to their tastes.
This deliberation engages the higher pleasures of thought, feeling and imagination, which are
inaccessible through conformity.
Learn Through Ways of Living
Secondly, Mill argues that individuality helps the individual to discover new, better ways of living.
This can be done through evidence gathered from their own experiments of living, that of others,
and custom, only available in a society with a diversity of expression.
Society
Stagnation
, Secondly, Mill then provides two arguments for why individuality as a whole is best for society in
terms of utilitarianism, appealing to his interest as a meliorist for society to progress.
Firstly, Mill argues that societies which prevent originality stagnation.
People who believe that custom is the best way to live make a spurious claim to infallibility, and
prevent social progress, which Mill believes is fundamental to maximising utility through the
dialectic between thesis and antithesis, developing better modes of action.
Mill says is evidenced by the stationariness of China, where custom and public opinion prevailed,
demonstrating that “the despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human
advancement.”
Thus, social progress through individuality is imperative.
Genius
Secondly, Mill argues that genius is needed for good government and society, because without
which there is a general tendency for mediocrity to dominate.
Mill believes geniuses as those who have severe differences of opinion, and, while rare, are the “salt
of the earth” because they “point out the way” against custom so that others can see the wisdom of
their advice, driving social progress and, thus, utility.
However, geniuses can only exist in an atmosphere of freedom, necessitating freedom of
expression.
Strong and Weak Willed
Thirdly, individuality breeds people of strong character through highly developed individuality, who
are vigorous in their pursuit of making life better, and “human beings become a noble and beautiful
object of contemplation”. If most people are submissive and weak-willed, which occurs on the
comparative where expression is shunned, society will reflect this weakness and cannot progress
due to its lack of will and energy. Thus, because progress is necessary for utility as demonstrated
previously, individuality is necessary for its societal benefits.
Summary
Thus, Mill appeals to two benefits for individuals and three benefits for society in determining that
individuality is necessary under indirect utilitarianism and in accordance with the Harm Principle,
insofar as it promotes social improvement.
B
Introductory Lines
Broadly, there are five challenges to Mill’s arguments for individuality on the basis of social
improvement. These claims are not directed to any of his five arguments in particular but to the
underlying assumptions and claims of his utilitarian project.
Liberty and Utility
Objection (Liberty Not Always Lead To Utility)
Firstly, the main objection is that there seems to be a tension between liberty and utility.
This is because empirically there are situations in which coercion may lead to greater happiness
than freedom would.
This is illustrated in the example of a potential drug addict. Government intervention in not allowing
addictive drugs would increase utility for that person than their liberty to take drugs would,
contradicting Mill’s arguments.
Mill Response (Harm Principle + Concedes Not Always Connected + Liberty Only Improvement
+Individuality Not Serviced By Conformity + Assumption of Infallibility)
However, this would be to misconstrue Mill’s arguments.
1. Firstly, under the Harm Principle people are not guaranteed absolute freedom, only that which is
self-regarding.
2. Secondly, Mill concedes that some freedoms protected under the Harm Principle may conflict
with utility in some circumstances. Mill argues that improvement and liberty are not always
connected, because if improvement were mandated by the state it may force improvement on
unwilling people, thus compromising their liberty.
3. Equally, liberty allows the liberty to resist improvement. However, Mill maintains that liberty is
the only permanent source of improvement because liberty allows a diverse range of opinions
and actions which are commensurate with improvement. Therefore, through Mill’s indirect
utilitarianism, he does not concern himself with what will maximise utility in every circumstance
but what permanently does so.
A
Introduction
On Liberty
Mill, in his treatise On Liberty, published in 1859 concerns himself with the civil liberty, or the extent
to which the state can legitimately exercise power over the individual.
Individuality
Sensing a Victorian social climate whereby society was antagonistic to any departure from
conventional norms, Mill believed that individuality was in danger of becoming extinct, so attempts
to provide a robust defence of individuality in terms of negative liberty, in accordance with his
indirect utilitarian framework.
Individuality serves “utility in its largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a
progressive being,” engaging Mill’s bigger project of promoting individual and societal progress via
character development.
Critical to this is Mill’s distinction between lower and higher pleasures, which are qualitatively
superior and are engaged in during intellectual deliberation and analysis; Mill wants to create a
climate in which individuals can develop themselves in terms of the higher pleasures which will
consequently drive social progress.
Mill believes that modern democratic systems cannot defend individual liberties against tyranny of
the majority, which is more insidious than political tyranny, so an argument defending such
interests was necessary.
Chapters
In Chapter One Mill presents the Harm Principle, establishing that self-regarding actions ought not
be society’s business.
In Chapter Three Mill aims to defend this principle in relation to individuality, providing five
arguments for why expression should go unchecked by authority if it does not harm others,
highlighting its promotion of self-development and the appreciation of more valuable pleasures in
pursuits.
His argumentation is bifurcated into benefits to individuals and society, promoting utility.
Self
We Are All Different and Rational
Firstly, Mill provides two arguments for why individuality is best for the individual in terms of utility.
Firstly, Mill argues empirically that it is evident that not all individuals have different tastes and
desires, so a conformity of actions would not be appropriate in their individual promotion of
happiness.
Mill quotes von Humbolt, who contends that the purpose of man is the “highest and most
harmonious development of his powers to a complete and consistent whole.”
By analogy, humans are like a tree, not a machine, which “requires to grow and develop itself on all
sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing.”
While customs may provide useful guidance, individuals must appraise their rightness in relation to
their own circumstances and character through different experiments of living. Mill argues that
humans are autonomous and rational (but allows benign paternalism for people he deems to be
irrational including children and “backward races”), and, therefore, in choosing reflectively what
actions to engage in based on available evidence can assume full responsibility for their own beliefs
and actions, consequently developing and flourishing according to their tastes.
This deliberation engages the higher pleasures of thought, feeling and imagination, which are
inaccessible through conformity.
Learn Through Ways of Living
Secondly, Mill argues that individuality helps the individual to discover new, better ways of living.
This can be done through evidence gathered from their own experiments of living, that of others,
and custom, only available in a society with a diversity of expression.
Society
Stagnation
, Secondly, Mill then provides two arguments for why individuality as a whole is best for society in
terms of utilitarianism, appealing to his interest as a meliorist for society to progress.
Firstly, Mill argues that societies which prevent originality stagnation.
People who believe that custom is the best way to live make a spurious claim to infallibility, and
prevent social progress, which Mill believes is fundamental to maximising utility through the
dialectic between thesis and antithesis, developing better modes of action.
Mill says is evidenced by the stationariness of China, where custom and public opinion prevailed,
demonstrating that “the despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human
advancement.”
Thus, social progress through individuality is imperative.
Genius
Secondly, Mill argues that genius is needed for good government and society, because without
which there is a general tendency for mediocrity to dominate.
Mill believes geniuses as those who have severe differences of opinion, and, while rare, are the “salt
of the earth” because they “point out the way” against custom so that others can see the wisdom of
their advice, driving social progress and, thus, utility.
However, geniuses can only exist in an atmosphere of freedom, necessitating freedom of
expression.
Strong and Weak Willed
Thirdly, individuality breeds people of strong character through highly developed individuality, who
are vigorous in their pursuit of making life better, and “human beings become a noble and beautiful
object of contemplation”. If most people are submissive and weak-willed, which occurs on the
comparative where expression is shunned, society will reflect this weakness and cannot progress
due to its lack of will and energy. Thus, because progress is necessary for utility as demonstrated
previously, individuality is necessary for its societal benefits.
Summary
Thus, Mill appeals to two benefits for individuals and three benefits for society in determining that
individuality is necessary under indirect utilitarianism and in accordance with the Harm Principle,
insofar as it promotes social improvement.
B
Introductory Lines
Broadly, there are five challenges to Mill’s arguments for individuality on the basis of social
improvement. These claims are not directed to any of his five arguments in particular but to the
underlying assumptions and claims of his utilitarian project.
Liberty and Utility
Objection (Liberty Not Always Lead To Utility)
Firstly, the main objection is that there seems to be a tension between liberty and utility.
This is because empirically there are situations in which coercion may lead to greater happiness
than freedom would.
This is illustrated in the example of a potential drug addict. Government intervention in not allowing
addictive drugs would increase utility for that person than their liberty to take drugs would,
contradicting Mill’s arguments.
Mill Response (Harm Principle + Concedes Not Always Connected + Liberty Only Improvement
+Individuality Not Serviced By Conformity + Assumption of Infallibility)
However, this would be to misconstrue Mill’s arguments.
1. Firstly, under the Harm Principle people are not guaranteed absolute freedom, only that which is
self-regarding.
2. Secondly, Mill concedes that some freedoms protected under the Harm Principle may conflict
with utility in some circumstances. Mill argues that improvement and liberty are not always
connected, because if improvement were mandated by the state it may force improvement on
unwilling people, thus compromising their liberty.
3. Equally, liberty allows the liberty to resist improvement. However, Mill maintains that liberty is
the only permanent source of improvement because liberty allows a diverse range of opinions
and actions which are commensurate with improvement. Therefore, through Mill’s indirect
utilitarianism, he does not concern himself with what will maximise utility in every circumstance
but what permanently does so.
