Summary-OnLiberty-Mill.docx

On Liberty J.S. Mill Chapter 1 Introductory Four stages of Liberty ‘protection against the tyranny of the political rulers’ by immunities/constitutional checks [Machiavelli-Locke]: no individual spontaneity Popular self-government ‘The nation did not need to be protected against its own will’ [Rousseau-J.Mill]: no individual spontaneity (experience of French Revolution) Struggle for limited democratic government and control of the ‘tyranny of the majority’ [Tocqueville]: no individual spontaneity “Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling” “the practical question, where to place the limit – how to make the fitting adjustment between individual independence and social control – is a subject on which nearly everything remains to be done” The ‘magical influence of custom’ “The practical principle which guides them to their opinions on the regulation of human conduct, is the feeling in each person’s mind that everybody should be required to act as he, and those with whom he sympathises, would like them to act.” Importance of class interest (esp. ascendant classes) in moral rules Exception of religion: great writers have “mostly asserted freedom of conscience as an indefeasible right, and denied absolutely that a human being is accountable to others for his religious belief” [Jefferson-Madison] Consequences of the lack of general principle of liberty: “the interference of government is, with equal frequency, improperly invoked and improperly condemned” Principle of liberty “The object of this essay is to assert one very simple principle […]. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. 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. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” Limits: “only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties” (excludes children, mentally retarted..) and those who “have attained the capacity of being guided to their own improvement by conviction or persuasion” (excludes backward states of society, barbarians) This is a utilitarian principle and not a ‘natural right’: “I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being” (I underline) Examples of legitimate interference for utilitarian reasons: give evidence in court, army… Exception of the rule: when the individual is likely to act better on its own, or when the attempt to exercise control would produce greater evils. Then “the conscience of the agent himself should step into the vacant judgment seat, and protect those interests of others which have no external protection” Self-regarding liberty What is self-regarding is harmless; “This, then, is the appropriate region of human liberty” Liberties directly associated to self-regard: liberty of conscious, liberty of thought and feeling Liberty indirectly associated to self-regard: liberty of expression since it is ‘practically inseparable’ from liberty of thought “No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free, whatever may be its form of government; and none is completely free in which they do not exist absolute and unqualified” [attack Comte] Threat : “The disposition of Mankind, whether as rulers or as fellow-citizens, to impose their own opinions and inclinations as a rule of conduct on others, is so energetically supported by some of the best and by some of the worst feelings incident to human nature, that it is hardly ever kept under restraint, but growing, unless a strong barrier of moral conviction can be raised against the mischief, we must except, in the present circumstances of the world, to see it increase.” Moral repression of religion Chapter 2 Of the liberty of thought and discussion General principle It is always illegitimate to silence the expression of an opinion: “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” All lose from it “If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error” Silencing an opinion which may be true “All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility” Infallibility differs from certainty “It is not the feeling sure of a doctrine (be it what it may) which I call an assumption of infallibility. It is the undertaking to decide that question for others, without allowing them to hear what can be said on the contrary side” The validity of an argument requires discussion: “The beliefs which we have most warrant for, have no safeguard to rest on, but a standing invitation to the whole world to prove them unfounded. [..] This is the amount of certainty attainable by a fallible being, and this the sole way of attaining it” Examples of historical mistakes: Socrates, the persecution of Christians by Marcus Aurelius, Modern forms of persecution persist (oath): “For a long time past, the chief mischief of the legal penalties is that they strengthen the social stigma. It is that stigma which is really effective” Utility of the liberty of expression: progress considered from an individual point of view : “The greatest harm done is to those who are not heretics, and whose whole mental development is cramped, and their reason cowed, by the fear of heresy” Utility of the liberty of expression: progress considered from a historical point of view : three periods of human progress Reformation, Enlightenment and the ‘Goethian and Fichtean period’; “The impulse given at these three periods had made Europe what it is now” Silencing an opinion that is or might be true An opinion recognised as true and therefore not discussed anymore is a ‘dead dogma’ Truth comes from “a balance to be struck between two sets of conflicting reasons” [Cicero]; Socratic dialectic, “no one’s opinion deserve the name of knowledge, except so far as he has either had forced upon him by others, or gone through of himself, the same mental process which would have been required of him in carrying on an active controversy with opponents” Objection: There is no necessity ‘for mankind in general’ to go through its process, it could be the function of an elite Reply: without this process, truth is only empty words without real meaning, “the shell and husk only of the meaning is retained, the finer essence being lost” Example 1: religious creeds as dead dogma, cause of its decline. More specifically Christians and the maxims of the New Testament: “These are considered sacred, and accepted as laws, by all professing Christians. Yet it is scarcely too much to say that not one Christian in a thousand guides or tests his individual conduct by reference to those laws” Example 2: this could be generalized to “all traditional doctrines – those of prudence and knowledge of life, as well as of morals or religion”. “The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing when it is no longer doubtful, is the cause of half their errors” Extrapolation: more and more opinions will become dead dogmas which is dangerous Silencing an opinion that is or might be partly true This is the most common case of popular opinion, which are “often true, but seldom or never the whole truth” when complementary truths are held by heretic opinions, usually silenced. All should be allowed expression “whatever amount of error and confusion that truth may be blended” Ex.1 Rousseau on hypocrisy of society, “ideas which have never been entirely absent from cultivated minds since Rousseau wrote; and they will in time produce their due effect” Ex. 2. Politics, conservative and progressive parties : “Each of these modes of thinking derives its utility from the deficiencies of the other; but it is in a great measure the opposition of the other that keeps each within the limits of reason and sanity” General principle : “Unless opinions favourable to democracy and to aristocracy, to property and to equality, to co-operation and to competition, to luxury and to abstinence, to sociality and individuality, to liberty and discipline, and all the other standing antagonisms of practical life, are expressed with equal freedom, and enforced and defended with equal talent and energy, there is no chance of both elements obtaining their due; one scale is sure to go up, and the other down” Objection: “ ‘But some received principles, especially on the highest and most vital subjects, are more than half-truths. The Christian morality, for instance, is the whole truth on that subject’” Reply: the New Testament does do contain the whole truth, the gospel refers to pre-existing moralities Conclusion: liberty of thought and religion is necessary; “I believe tat other ethics than any which can be evolved from exclusively Christian sources, must exist side by side with Christians ethics to produce the moral regeneration of mankind; and that the Christian system is no exception to the rule, that in an imperfect state of the human mind, the interests of truth require a diversity of opinions.” Conclusions of the Chapter “if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own fallibility” “though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied” “even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth, unless it is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will [..] be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds” Should temperance in manners limit the liberty of expression? Argument 1: the ‘gravest’ kind of offences is “to argue sophistically, to suppress facts or arguments, to misstate the elements of the case”, and these are fully accepted by the opinion Argument 2: as intemperate discussion is usually used by minorities, this would stigmatise the ones that do not share the prevailing opinion “as bad and immoral men” Conclusion: law “has no business with restraining” what is said and how it is said Chapter 3. Of individuality, as one of the elements of well-being Liberty of self-regarding action General principle: “Acts, of whatever kind, which, without justifiable cause, do harm to others, may be, and in the more important cases absolutely require to be, controlled by the unfavourable sentiments, and when needful, by the active interference of mankind. The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people.” Argument: contributes to individual well-being (utilitarian argument). Like liberty of expression, liberty of self-regarding acts is essential to the realisation of the individual’s spontaneity, character and happiness. “free development of individuality is one of the leading essentials to well-being” (pb, liberty of expression is not properly self-regarding, is there pure self-regarding actions? What is harm?) Problem: spontaneity is not valued by the majority, “individual spontaneity is hardly recognised by the common modes of thinking, as having any intrinsic worth, or deserving any regard on its own account. The majority, being satisfied with the ways of mankind as they now are […] cannot comprehend why those ways should not be good enough for everybody” [Humbold]; Role of custom; “it is the privilege and proper condition of a human being, arrived at the maturity of its faculties, to use and interpret experience in his own way. It is for him to find out what part of recorded experience is properly applicable to his own circumstances and character.” Between impulses and social rules Strong impulses should be cultivated, makes ‘energetic characters’ Finding a balance between spontaneity and obedience to social rules; “There has been a time when the element of spontaneity and individuality was in excess, and the social principle had a hard struggle with it. [..] But society has now fairly got the better of individuality, and the danger which threatens human nature is not the excess, but the defiency, of personal impulses and preferences” Role of religions: Calvinist religion prompts man to be obedient, contrary to pagans. “Christian ideal of self-government blends with it, but does not supersede” “It is not by wearing down into uniformity all that is individual in themselves, but by cultivating it and calling it forth, within the limits by the rights and interests of others, that human beings become a noble and beautiful object of contemplation” Is self-development purely self-regarding? Positive externalities, “In proportion to the development of his individuality, each person becomes more valuable to himself, and is therefore capable of being more valuable to others. [..] The means of development which the individual loses by being prevented from gratifying his inclinations to the injury of others, are chiefly obtained at the expense of the development of other people” Conclusion: liberty of self-regarding actions “brings human beings themselves nearer to the best thing they can be”; Utilitarian argument for equal right to liberty [to finish] Argument 1: Individuals need to experience different lives to realize themselves, “different persons require different conditions for their spiritual development […] The same things which are helps to one person towards the cultivation of his higher nature, are hindrances to another” Danger of uniformity; “The general average of mankind are not only moderate in intellect, but also moderate in inclinations [..] they consequently do not understand those who have. [..] these tendencies of the ties cause the public to be more disposed than at most former period to prescribe general rules of conduct, and endeavour to make every one conform to the approved standard.” Utility of people of higher natures: genius an only develop with freedom actions, role of higher people to balance mediocrity of the mass “The greatness of England is now all collective: individually small, we only appear capable of anything great by our habit of combining[..]. but it was men of another stamp than this that made England what it has been; and men of another stamp will be needed to prevent its decline” - Liberty and Progress of civilisations “The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human advancement” “The spirit of improvement is not always a spirit of liberty [..] but the only unfailing and permanent source of improvement is liberty, since by it there are as many possible independent centres of improvement as there are individuals” “A people, it appears, may be progressive for a certain length of time, and then stop: when does it stop? When it ceases to possess individuality” ex China What makes Europe different from China? Diversity, “Europe is, in m judgment, wholly indebted to this plurality of paths for its progressive and many-sided development. But it already begins to possess this benefit in a considerable less degree” [Tocqueville, Ancien Regime] Chapter 4. Of the limits to the authority of society over the individual Utilitarian coercion What are the limits of individual’s sovereignty? “Where does the authority of society begins? How much of human life should be assigned to individuality, and how much to society?” General principle: Self-other regarding distinction “To individuality should belong the part of life in which it is chiefly the individual that is interested; to society the part which chiefly interests society”. Legitimate area of legal interference: individual’s conduct towards the rest of society, firstly like not injuring the interests of others, and secondly bearing his share “of the labours and sacrifices incurred for defending the society or its members from injury and molestation” Legitimate area of moral disapprobation: “The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others, or wanting in due consideration for their welfare, without going the length of violating any of their constituted rights. The offender may then be justly punished by opinion, though not by law” In cases where a persons conduct only affects his interest there should be a “perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand the consequences” Argument: each one is the most interested in his own well-being, and knows best how to achieve it. Overruling his judgment on general principles may be wrong or misapplied to this particular person ; “In the conduct of human beings towards one another, it is necessary that general rules should for the most part be observed, in order that people may know what they have to expect; but in each person’s own concerns, his individual spontaneity is entitled to free exercise” Self-regarding acts and natural penalties Self-regarding does mean the others are indifferent to it, their feelings are indirectly affected by it Matters of public contempt: “There is a degree of folly, and a degree of [..] lowness or depravation of taste, which, though it cannot justify doing harm to the person who manifests it, renders him necessarily and properly a subject of distaste”, such individuals should be warned to avoid this manifestation of public contempt Contempt is unavoidable but should remain the only inconvenience suffered by self-regarding conducts; these ‘natural penalties’ are self-inflicted, he “has no right to complain”, they do not undermine self-regarding liberty Some self-regarding misconduct “may violate a distinct and assignable obligation to any other person or persons, the case is taken out of the self-regarding class, and becomes amenable to moral disapprobation in the proper sense of the term” Example: “No person ought to be punished simply for being drunk; but a soldier or a policeman should be punished for being drunk on duty. Whenever, in short, there is a definite damage, or a definite risk of damage, either to an individual or to the public, the case is taken out of the province of liberty, and placed in that of morality or law” Distinction between penalties for self-regarding misconduct (dislike, natural penalties) and penalties for other-regarding misconduct like immoralities (punishment, artificial penalties) Case of bad examples: “it is true that bad examples may have a pernicious effect [..] but [..] the example, on the whole, must be more salutary than hurtful since, if it displays the misconduct, it displays also the painful or degrading consequences which, if the conduct is justly censured, must be supposed to be in all or most cases attendant on it” Role of Government Society should not however wait till individual act irrationally and hurt the others to punish them, society has the duty to bring “its weaker members up to is ordinary standard of rational conduct” Society has in charge the moral education of its member: “Society has had absolute power over them during all the early portion of their existence: it has had the whole period of childhood and nonage in which to try whether it could make them capable of rational conduct in life. […] If society lets any considerable number of its members grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, society has itself to blame for the consequences” Armed with education and natural penalties, “let not society pretend that it needs, besides all this, the power to issue commands and enforce obedience in the personal concerns of individuals” “But the strongest of all the arguments against the interference of the public with purely personal conduct, is that when it does interfere, the odds are that it interferes wrongly, and in the wrong place”, Cause the majority is usually wrong when it tries to rule minorities’s lives since it only considers its own preferences Examples of usurpations of liberty by the majority Example 1: religion intolerance. Muslim rule not eat pork, what if a majoritarian muslim country decide to ban consumption of pork in the country?; the Puritans’ attempt in UK “to put down all public, and nearly all private, amusements: especially music, dancing, public games, or other assemblages for purposes of diversion, and the theatre” [..] “it is by no means impossible that persons of these sentiments may at some time or other command a majority in Parliament” Example 2; democratic feelings and its consequence upon consumption and wages standards Example 3: prohibition of alcohol in US (Maine laws 1851); distinction between consumption of alcohol (self-regarding) and trading alcohol (other-regarding). Principle behind prohibition of consumption is “far more dangerous than any single interference with liberty; there is no violation of liberty which it would not justify” Example 4: Sabbatarian legislation. Distinction between self and other-regarding. Society is legitimate to rule for suspending work for a day as it is grounded “on the direct interest which others have in each individual’s observance of the practice”. But legislation cannot apply to the “self-chosen occupations in which a person may think fit to employ his leisure”. Necessity to have another day off for those willing to work. Example 5: Mormonism. Should we force them to conform to our rules (pb of polygamy)? Mormons established in a remote desert, out of their original community, personal choice of women inherited from our own custom of marriage since a perpetual contract is incompatible with his doctrine of liberty), no justification to interfere with their choice “I am not aware that any community has a right to force another to be civilised” Chapter 5. Applications Principles and applications This chapter is about specimen of applications “which may serve to bring into greater clearness the meaning and limits of the two maxims which together form the entire doctrine of this Essay” First maxim : “the individual is not accountable to society for his actions, in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself. Advice, instruction, persuasion, and avoidance by other people [..] are the only measures by which society can justifiably express its dislike or disapprobation of his conduct” Second maxim : “for such actions as are prejudicial to the interests of others, the individual is accountable, and may be subjected either to social or to legal punishment, if society is of opinion that the one or the other is requisite for its protection” Damage or probability of damage to the interests of others cannot always justify the interference of society; “In many cases, an individual, in pursuing a legitimate object, necessarily and therefore causes legitimately causes pain or loss to others, or intercepts a good which they had a reasonable hope of obtaining”, unavoidable opposition of interests, ex. Competitive examination Principle of Free trade differs from principle of self-regarding liberty “trade is a social act. Whoever undertakes to sell any description of goods to the public, does what affects the interest of other persons, and of society in general; and thus his conduct, in principle, comes within the jurisdiction of society” It is true that free trade is more efficient, and benefit to the whole society, but “as the principle of individual liberty is not involved in the doctrine of Free Trade, so neither is it in most of the questions which arise respecting the limits of that doctrine” [ex. Sanitary precautions..] But there are restrictions of trade that relate to the liberty principle ex. Maine laws, importation of opium, sale of poisons; “These interferences are objectionable, not as infringements on the liberty of the producer of seller, but on that of the buyer” - Limits of police authority What are the limits of police? Example of poison sale and dangerous bridge Principle of certainty of danger; “when there is not a certainty, but only a danger of mischief, no one but the person himself can judge of the sufficiency of the motive which may prompt him to incur the risk : in this case [..] he ought, I conceive, to be only warned of the danger; not forcibly prevented from exposing himself to it.” Legitimate preventing measures; In case of poisons, labelling drugs may be enforced; in case of well-known violent drunkenness, legal restriction, in case of guns selling, recordings or witnesses Particular case of public offenses against decency or violation f good manners “may be rightfully prohibited” Case of solicitation [prostitution and gambling houses]; “is one of those which lie on the exact boundary line between two principles, and it is not at once apparent to which of the two it properly belongs” Discouraging policies and taxation Should the State “indirectly discourage conduct which it deems contrary to the best interests of the agent”? ex. Making drunkenness more costly First Argument: “Every increase of cost is a prohibition, to those whose means do not come up to the augmented price; and to those who do, it is a penalty laid on them for gratifying a particular taste” Objection: “taxation for fiscal purposes is absolutely inevitable” New Argument: “It is hence the duty of the State to consider, in the imposition of taxes, what commodities the consumers can best spare; and a fortiori, to select in preference those of which it deems the use, beyond a very moderate quantity, to be positively injurious. Taxation, therefore, of stimulants, up to the point which produces the largest amount of revenue [..] is not only admissible, but to be approved of.” Limiting in number beer or spirit houses is however treating individuals as children and belong “to the system of despotic, or what is called paternal, government” Voluntary associations and contracts Are free “so long as the will of all the persons implicated remains unaltered” “Not only persons are not held to engagements which violate the rights of third parties, but it is sometimes considered a sufficient reason for releasing them from an engagement, that it is injurious to themselves” Example: slavery, the voluntary slave “defeats the very purpose which is the justification of allowing him to dispose of himself”, one is not free not to be free Limited engagement; engagements “should never be legally binding beyond a limited duration of time” , marriage should “require nothing more than the declared will of either party to dissolve” [Humbold] Education Education should be mandatory Diversity of education encourages diversity of lives, no State education Examinations on all subjects Government interference to act from behalf individuals Question: “it is asked whether the government should do, or cause to be done, something for their benefit, instead of leaving it to be done by themselves, individually, or in voluntary combination” Objection 1: “the thing to be done is likely to be better done by individuals than by the government” Objection 2: Even if not the case, it participates to their mental education, “a mode of strengthening their active faculties, exercising their judgment” ex jury trials; varied experiments and diversity Objection 3: “the great evil of adding unnecessarily to its power”, bureaucracy.. rule is “the greatest dissemination of power consistent with efficiency; but the greatest possible centralisation of information and diffusion of it from the centre” Conclusion: “A government cannot have too much of the kind of activity which does not impede, but aids and stimulates, individual exertion and development. The mischief begins when, instead of alling for the activity and powers of individuals and bodies, it substitutes its own activity for theirs; when instead of informing, advising, and upon occasion, denouncing, it makes them work in fetters, or bids them stand aside and does their work instead of them”