On Liberty

Mill argues that individuals should be free to act in any way they want provided the action only affects themselves, not other people. When individual actions do affect others, society should be free to interfere. Mill asserts that while “society is not founded on a contract,” everyone who lives in society owes something to it in return. This means individuals do not have the right to hurt fellow citizens (which includes hindering them from pursuing their personal interests) and they must contribute to the maintenance and security of society against harm. These are things society is justified in enforcing legally; society can also punish people through public opinion of them if they hurt others without technically violating their legal rights. However, society’s right to interfere does not extend to individual actions that only affect the individual, provided they can make reasonable decisions.

Mill assures the reader that he doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t take an interest in another individual’s conduct. On the contrary, people should want to help each other make good choices for their lives and discourage each other from making bad ones. However, nobody has the right to prohibit a capable adult from having the ultimate say in their individual conduct. Only individuals can determine what their best interest is; the interest of society or other people in their actions is typically indirect and secondary. General rules should be enforced for how people treat each other, but not for how they treat themselves—any consequences that a person might inadvertently inflict on themselves are outweighed by the great evil of letting other people think and decide for them.

Mill also says he doesn’t mean to imply that a person shouldn’t be judged by others based on their merits. Society may either admire or condemn an individual for having either good or bad qualities, respectively. A person may be widely avoided or condemned for having extremely negative personal qualities even though they don’t impact anyone else, and it is an act of charity to tell them about these bad qualities before they get out of hand. Furthermore, people have a right to act on their bad opinion of another person by avoiding them, warning others to avoid them, or giving another person preferential treatment over the other, as long as one does all these things honestly instead of maliciously. In this way, society naturally punishes individuals for cultivating offensive habits or characteristics even though the individual isn’t breaking a law.

Mill writes that the minor inconveniences an individual suffers because society judges them negatively for personal conduct is the full extent of what society can inflict on them for actions that only affect themselves. However, when another person is hurt—such as when one individual lies to or takes unfair advantage of another—punishment and reprobation is justified. The personal qualities that lead to conduct that harms others are also worthy of public abhorrence but cannot be punished as actions. Individuals are not accountable to society for their own lack of self-respect or moral development. People can distance themselves from an unfavorable person, but they cannot punish that person for being unlikable. Instead, people should bear in mind that this individual is already suffering for their mistakes, requires help, and people should treat them with patience instead of anger unless they have violated the rights or safety of others.

Mill admits that many people will reject the idea that there is a meaningful distinction between behavior that only affects an individual and behavior that affects others. The grounds for this argument are that nobody exists in total isolation, they have relationships that might be indirectly hurt by their actions. Society, too, may be hurt by an individual’s mistakes because they may render themselves unable to contribute to society or even deplete society’s resources. Additionally, an individual may hurt society by setting a bad example to others. Mill also acknowledges that people will question whether society really has no right to interfere with adults who are evidently unfit to make good choices, or if society is truly not justified in prohibiting things (like gambling) that have long been established as moral vices. These rules, of course, would not limit individuality, but protect people from repeating the mistakes of past generations.

Mill acknowledges the truth of these concerns and explains how society should determine whether to interfere. When a person violates an obligation they owe others through their actions—like spending money they owe to others or making an investment that deprives their family of money they need to support themselves—then society is justified in reprobating or punishing them. Similarly, if a person makes a selfish choice that prevents them from being able to perform a duty they owe to society, then they can be punished for it. As an example, Mill says nobody can be punished for being drunk, but a soldier can be punished for being drunk when they’re supposed to be working. In other words, simply risking damage to another person or society, the action is subject to the judgment of public opinion or the law.

However, when a person’s individual conduct doesn’t violate their duty to society or hurt another person other than themselves, society must simply deal with the inconvenience. Furthermore, Mill believes that if a person is going to punished for not taking proper care of themselves, then it should be for their protection instead of under the pretense of the public welfare. However, Mill also argues that society must wait until a person has committed a wrong to interfere because society has almost total control over people’s development from the time they’re children through education. Indeed, the current generation is best equipped to prepare the next generation for to be just as successful as the current, if not more so. Because of this, society has nobody to blame but itself if adults are generally incapable of reasonableness.

Mill states that society is already equipped with providing education and the power of prevailing opinions (which exercises control over individual minds), so it shouldn’t also have the power to demand obedience to rules governing individual conduct that doesn’t affect other people. Furthermore, Mill maintains that if there are any individuals with strong characters in society, they would rebel against overbearing authority and even act in opposition to it. Also, Mill believes that when it comes to setting an example to others, if an individual is making choices that only hurt them individually, then they also set an example of the natural consequences of poor behavior. 

According to Mill, the greatest argument against society’s interference in an individual’s actions (aside from those which affect others) is that when it does, it is frequently wrong because it’s driven by “overruling majority” without considering the opinions and particular beliefs of the minority. There are people who are offended by the opinions other people hold and both sides can get passionate about it, but Mill believes there is no real similarity between the feelings of one person for their opinions and another who resents or is offended by that opinion. When society interferes in human affairs, it is usually because it’s offended by someone acting differently from the established norm, although people try to attribute the need for interference to religion. Those who do this argue that certain dictates are right simply because they are, and so society must accept them.

Mill states that he wants to provide examples of people’s tendency to employ a “moral police” that encroaches too far on individual liberty. The first example includes Muslim societies in which the majority refuses to eat pork because of their religious beliefs. If they established a law which prohibited eating pork, nobody could accuse them of religious persecution because nobody’s religion requires them to eat pork, but some might see it as a violation of individual liberty. A similar question can be asked about the rightness of laws prohibiting all clergy from marrying in Spain, which is predominately Catholic (Catholicism prohibits clergy from marrying). People who think these things are immoral can make a compelling argument in favor of suppressing them, but by this logic they must be willing to accept being suppressed in the name or morality in societies in which they are a minority.

Mill writes that some other examples that occur closer to home might be easier to understand or relate to. These examples include limitations being placed on how people are allowed to enjoy their free time or the general disapprobation (namely in the United States) of people frivolously spending money even if they can afford it. As far as laws that encroach on individual liberty goes, Mill uses a widespread American law prohibiting the sale of alcohol as an example. This law, however, punishes people for drinking alcohol (a private act and the one society wishes to stop) rather than for selling it (a public act) because people consider drinking alcohol a potential threat to individual security. Mill argues that this perspective of social rights is dangerous because it can be used to punish any kind of behavior any individual disagrees with or claims to be offended by.

Mill says that a similar argument can be made about the legislation that demands certain types of work stop on Sundays because it’s considered a religious day (notably only by Christians, not by Jews or many other minority religious). This legislation prevents individual people from deciding whether to work on Sundays, which encroaches on individual liberty. Furthermore, it favors one group’s beliefs over another’s. In a similar vein, Mill sharply criticizes American society and government for persecuting Mormons for practicing polygamy in the desert after being driven out of their home state. Although Mill doesn’t agree with polygamy himself, he believes that if it only occurs between consenting adults, then nobody has the right to punish them for it. Furthermore, external interference on behalf of oppressed people is only acceptable when those people ask for it.