Note on “Mill’s On Liberty: Introduction” by C.L.Ten

Note on "Mill's On Liberty: Introduction" by C.L.Ten

A summary of summary:
What is the nature of the liberty that Mill wanted to defend, and what are the sources of danger to it? In short, there are two kinds of resources of danger to individual liberty. The first one is the "social tyranny", which does not only imply the enforeful power of government but also the control of custom. The tyranny encroaches on both opinions and conduct and thereby prevents the development of genuine individuality. The second one is the potential mutual harm between individuals. If there is no necessary constraint on conduct to avoid that people harm one another freely, the individual liberty is impossible to be achieved. The former is advocating the absence of compulsion from government, while the later is claiming the necessity of the existence of social regulation. "so the problem is to estiblish a proper balance between individual independence and social control"(ML,2).

Where should the government have no control upon individual? Mill says that "the appropriate region of liberty " comprises: "first, the inward domain of consciousness; …liberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects…Secondly, …liberty of tastes and persuits; of framing the plan of our life to suit our character…without impediment from our fellow-creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong. Thirdly…freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others."(CW xviii,,225-6 [1,12]) In short, Mill expresses his view like this: "The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of persuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it"(CW xviii, 226 [1,13]).

Ten emphasizes the close connection between liberty and individuality. Without securing the appropriate region of individual liberty, "persons will lack individuality in that they are unable to form independent beliefs about the shape they want their own lives to take, nor are they able to lead their lives in accordance with their own conception of what a good life for them should be."(ML, 2-3) In the following paragraphs, Ten proceeds to interprate Mill's defense of liberty of thought and discussion as a deeper articulation of individuality. He points out that there is a shift from the likelihood of the opinion being true or false to the claim that every person should be able to judge for himself or herself the truth or falsity of an opinion. As he says, "if his argument has anything to do with the truth, it is evident that he is not so much concerned about whether freedom of expression will lead to the discovery of true beliefs, and all the individual and social benefits which such discoveries would bring. Rather, he is more interested in the manner in which people hold their beliefs, whether true or false"(ML, 4). A person can acquire a true opinion by simply relying on authority without any reflection. Mill rejects such an approach to the acquisition of true beliefs: "this is not knowing the truth" (Cwxviii, 244 [11,22]).

So called "knowing the truth" is to understand the meaning and grounds for one's own opinions, which need to keep them open to all arguments and evidence for and against these opinions. For Mill, individuals, who have "the dignity of thinking beings"(Cwxviii,243 [11,20]), will "accept as true only a belief that survives the challenges thrown at it in a free and open society where those holding diverse and conflicting views are encouraged to assert their opinions and debate with one another"(ML, 5).

In the case for liberty of conduct, Mill emphasizes the exercise of choice when people are carrying out their "experiments in living" at their own risk and peril. "He who does anything because it is the custom, makes no choice"(Cwxviii, 262 [111,3]). More important is that without choice something of great value would be missing. Individuality is a value that can be realized only when each person freely choose her own plan of life for herself.

Where should individuals be interfered by government? "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 civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others"(Cwxviii, 223-4[I,9]). Indeed Mill identifies the prevention of harm to others as the only legitimate ground for coercive interference with the conduct of a person. Self-harming and dislikeness in feeling or opinion could not be considered as harm to one another.

But some of Mill's comments indicate that his notion of harm includes elements which have bases independent of his account of individuality. For example, "a person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is just accountable to them for the injury."(Cwxviii,225 [I, II]). We may legitimately be compelled to perform many positive acts for the benefit of others. Although no detailed justification of these "social obligations" is given, they seem to rest on notions of reciprocity and mutual benefit. Ten points out that what counts as conduct harming the interests of others does not involve an appeal to individuality. Disagreements on these issues may need to turn to "the pinciples of efficiency, fairness, and productivity, which will determine each person's entitlement to the existing and future resources of the community"(ML,12).

Route for next week:
As we can see in the last paragraph of the summary, there is some elements in the principle of harm is not consistent with Mill's account of indivuduality in his defense of liberty. That implies that individuality is necessary but not the sufficient condition for individual liberty. To have a more coherent account of Mill's principle of liberty, we need to take his principle of utility into account. Henry R. West gives us an alternative to interpret Mill's principle from the point of principle of utility. Next week I will proceed to observe West's article of "Mill's case for liberty".

Notes
1. ML, abbreviation of Mill's On Liberty, ed. C.L.Ten, Cambrige University Press, 2008.
2. CW, abbreviation of The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, ed. John M. Robson, University of Toronto Press, 1963-91.

Zhang Ming