Welcome to a new series on the basics of political philosophy. Understanding political philosophy is essential to properly understand the way the world around us functions. From the way our governments are structured, how much authority they have over us as individuals to intra and interstate conflict, the centuries of thought encompassed in PolPhil is not only really interesting, but really important too.

First up, Mill. This brief essay seeks to explain and critically evaluate J.S. Mill’s defence against individual liberty, as well as his claim that this liberty is especially threatened by modern democratic society.

In an era marked by debates on surveillance, censorship, and the limits of free expression, John Stuart Mill’s ideas on individual liberty resonate with renewed urgency. Among the challenges of the modern world, Mill’s insights offer a compelling framework for analysis.

John Stuart Mill was a British philosopher, economist and politician. His emphasis on the quality of individual life, reflected in a commitment to individuality, as well as his sympathy for causes such as female suffrage and workers’ cooperatives have been immeasurably influential in modern liberal philosophy. Mill was the preeminent British liberal thinker of the 19th century. As an advocate of Utilitarianism, he examined the relationship of society to the individual.

This essay seeks to explain and critically evaluate Mill’s defence of individual liberty and his concern about its threat in modern democratic societies, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of his beliefs.

Following the English Civil War and the Protestant Reformation, the legitimacy of the state and the nature of the power that it can legitimately exercise over the individual were greatly debated by thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jaques Rousseau and, in turn, John Stuart Mill. In regards to the reconciliation of individual freedom and political authority, Mill’s position was libertarian in that it accepted only the most minimal restrictions on individual freedom, and then only in order to prevent ‘harm to others.’ In On Liberty (1859), Mill argued that “the 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 distinguishes clearly between actions that are ‘self-regarding’ and those that are ‘other-regarding.’ Self-regarding actions are those that pertain to one’s self and over which an individual should exercise absolute freedom. Other-regarding actions are those that pertain to others and could restrict the freedom of others or do them damage, these actions should be subject to restrictions.

“Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” It is this principle that serves as the foundation for his philosophy on individual liberty, a conception of liberty that is essentially negative as it portrays freedom in terms of the absence of restrictions on an individual’s ‘self-regarding’ actions. However, an interesting extension of this philosophy is that Mill did not accept any restrictions on the individual that are designed to prevent a person from damaging himself or herself, either physically or morally. Such a view suggests, for example, that laws enforcing the wearing of seatbelts in cars or helmets on motorcycles are unacceptable and radical libertarians may defend the right of people to use addictive drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, on the same grounds.

Moreover, Mill argues that individual liberty fosters diversity of opinions and ideas, which in turn contributes to social progress. Only within a free market of ideas will ‘truth’ emerge, as good ideas displace bad ones and ignorance is progressively banished. Contest, debate and argument, the fruit of diversity or multiplicity, is therefore the key to social progress.

In its unrestrained form, democracy leads to tyranny, but, in the absence of democracy, ignorance and brutality will prevail. Mill expressed concerns about not only the make-up of the majority in modern, industrial societies but also the unequal distribution of political wisdom due to education and the impact this could have on democratic processes. He advocated for a system of plural voting that would disenfranchise the illiterate and allocate one, two, three or four votes to people depending on their levels of education and social position.

As a pioneer of liberal thought and a vocal advocate for diversity of ideas, Mill was particularly threatened by democracy and the spread of ‘dull conformism.’ He feared that the tyranny of the majority could potentially suppress minority voices and individual liberties, arguing as follows: “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” Conformity can restrict expression and autonomy in modern democracies, therefore restricting individual liberty as the value of liberty is that it enables individuals to develop, to gain talents, skills and knowledge and to refine their sensibilities.