On Liberty Flexible Credit Book Report
On Liberty, written by John Stuart Mill in 1859, is about the freedom of the individual. It discusses the battle between liberty and authority. The importance of individual development is predominant in this essay. Mill’s essay is a classic text that has made a significant impact on modern liberalism. This piece of philosophical expertise asks two main questions: what are the limits of freedom? When can the government legally regulate one’s freedoms by forcing and restricting laws?
In On Liberty, J.S. Mill’s main argument is for the Harm Principle. He believed that the proper scope of the law is the Harm Principle. It expresses that if your action harms someone else, the government can legitimately step in and try to stop you. The government can even punish you for your catastrophic behavior. However, if the action you are committing does not harm anyone else, then the government does not obtain the right stop you. So, what is good for the people should be decided by the people, not the state. For an individual to have the most freedom, they must be able to make their own actions and decisions.
Mill stated that the government can interfere if a person is bringing harm to others, but not necessarily that the government should interfere. Harm to others is a fundamental but not sufficient condition for restraining liberties. Soft Paternalism and the Harm Principle are somewhat inconsistent with each other. The government cannot forbid you from doing something, but it can give you a warning.
He claims that Soft Paternalism is not for adults who have a healthy mental state. Therefore, Mill does not believe that the Harm Principle applies to everybody. He believes that personal liberty only applies to civil adults, or more specifically, white Europeans. As the result, John Stuart Mill viewed benevolent despotism as a good thing.
Liberty is threatened by the public judgment. With public opinion, John Stuart Mill found that the majority is always heard. Therefore, many important voices are unheard if they are in the minority. People feel constrained by what others will think. There are many prejudices and humanity has flaws. As a result, people conform. Mill knew that people are not perfect; therefore, he believed it was to be the individual’s responsibility to improve himself or herself. However, to improve, one needs liberty. As you use your liberty, you will not only better yourself, but the future generations will develop more rational morals.
This essay also brings up the concept of modern Utilitarianism. Mill believed that utilitarianism was made for the good of everybody. Actions should be measured by how much happiness they produce. Individuals are not excused from society’s obligations. People should be able to respect others while respecting themselves. Everyone should be able to live the way they want to. Individual freedom leads to euphoria; therefore, it needs to be protected. Not everyone agrees and that is okay. We need a variety of views for our minds to think well and censorship prohibits progression.
The definition of the word “harm” varies. There are different interpretations of what is adequately harmful. This then affects what one’s liberties actually are. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the word harm as “physical or mental damage”. This would suggest that harm is only physical or mental; however, some people may not agree with this. There is not a set version of what harm is. What is harmful to one person, may not be harmful to another.
On Liberty suggests that Liberalism makes exceptions for racism. People who teach these essays mainly focus on the good parts, like freedom of speech and the right to not conform. However, other parts contain the bad. These parts are more racially prejudiced. He sees colonization as a tool to help native peoples. J.S. Mill presumes that they do not have the capacity to think for themselves. The colonists must help them build societies that they could not build on their own. He advocates for tolerant imperialism. He did not believe that Indians should be allowed to run India; however, he did believe that they may be able to do it one day, once Britain had successfully helped advance their country. I do not agree with this because tolerant imperialism is not what the British did. I believe they were not tolerant in any regard. Changing people’s way of life and forcing them to conform to your own way of thinking does not display tolerance.
Who decides when the nation has been improved enough to run itself? Yes, the British, the imperialists who are in control and making the improvements. That is the problem. Colonial powers cannot be the the people who decide whether or not a nation can run itself. The government has total control over that nation. The native people obtain no power. Mill basically stated that the Indians would be able to get power again one day, as long as they became Indian in blood, but European in spirit. The natives own vision is completely overlooked. Benevolent despotism does not set anyone free. Colonization is exploitative. Mill is presuming that the ruled will want to be like the ruler.
We can give the excuse that John Stuart Mill was just “of his time”; however, this essay has played a significant role for a multitude of governments. Therefore, we need to be careful while looking at it. One of the main problems with benevolent despotism is when most people are given absolute power, they begin to look after their own interests. And if this was solved, benevolent despotism would actually be feasible. However, this problem has not be fixed. The rulers take care of what affects them rather than the people.
Mill’s perspective is from his own nation’s viewpoint, not from the nations they colonized. Are benevolent despotism and cultural imposition irrevocably linked to one another? Well, no they are not. However, the interpretation of liberty today allows a near imperial aggressor to invade and break all institutions. This leaves a subject nation with no way to express freedoms.
But this brings up two questions for me: are non-liberal ideas less racist? If the Harm Principle carries racist baggage, then it should not be used, right? If liberalism is supposedly innately racist, seemingly because it proposes that actions should be motivated by reason rather than tradition, then there should be an alternative.
The not English in blood, but English in spirit part was probably a more accurate representation of his view. He saw colonialism as good only when it was used as a force for good. The word liberal holds a meaning to a more progressive, left wing stance. However, Liberalism in this essay parallels with libertarianism in the United States. It aims for a limited government and an extended personal freedom.
I do not agree with Mill’s somewhat racist viewpoint, but I am willing to forgive this because he actually believed imperialism if "done right" could help the conquered peoples as well. However, he didn't have the luxury of seeing how things turned out after the Europeans left and the possibility of becoming industrialized without giving up your cultural identity probably never crossed his mind. After all, from his European perspective, imperialism had worked. It brought medicine, education, public order, irrigation, roads, and public health.
In conclusion, I do agree with the fact that the freedom to make mistakes promotes individual development. An individual should be free to pursue what they want. However, if liberty also brings discrimination, we must find a way to improve that problem. If a person does not have civil rights, how can they have civil liberties? In order for a oneself to be a free individual, there cannot be any limits put upon them. The government should encourage intelligent people to make their own decisions, without the authority placing any form of restrictive ideas on them.