Individual Freedom In John Stuart Mill's On Liberty

John Stuart Mill says we all have a right to individual freedom, which gives us the freedom to express our thoughts and opinions without getting punished for it, as long as our opinions don’t interfere with

someone else’s individual freedom. A good example of this concept comes from Zechariah Chafee, Jr. who says “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.”

One of John Stuart Mill’s principles was that of individual freedom, which he speaks of in On Liberty. As we use our own thought to base our feelings of concepts and ideas, we are utilising our individual freedom. The freedom no one can take from us is the liberty to think as we would like. Expressing those thoughts, however, is a different story, for not everyone in this world is as free to express as they are to think without certain consequences. Our thoughts are the beginning of everything: from a simple thought grows an idea. It’s like having a seed to a plant and knowing what will grow of it, but not how it will affect those around it.

In his

book On Liberty John Stuart Mill also talks about the harm principle. According to his writings harm can be both physical and psychological. Mill writes “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.” He also states that harm to others for your own good whether it be physical or moral is not a sufficient warrant. By this he is saying that someone does not have to physically push you in order to actually hurt you or compel you to do something making you think it is the right thing when really it’s just the “right” thing in the eyes of the public.
In 2003, Philosopher Will Cartwright published an article called John Stuart Mill on Freedom of Discussion. In this article he gives us a sophisticated judgement of both On Liberty and Utilitarianism. Cartwright writes about On Liberty “Though freedom of discussion was widely accepted even in Mill’s own day, he thinks that the arguments for it are not widely appreciated, something that is no doubt still true.” He is referring to chapter II of On Liberty, where Mill says that one should not have beliefs without knowing the reasons for them. These arguments for free discussion are more relevant to issues of liberty, for Mill holds that these arguments, suitably adapted, are also arguments for freedom of action. Cartwright compares the majority view with the minority view. He argues that if the majority share a view on something they will seek to silence the minority who think otherwise, but if Mill’s correct, then the minority will remain free to express its thoughts. In this situation if the minority could not express its beliefs, it would cripple the greater good assuming that their ideas are false. Therefore, If the minority is able to explain to the larger amount what is being done wrong, it could lead to the majority changing their view on that subject.
Another principle Cartwright talks about is the harm principle. He says “It is simple in so far as the avoidance of harm is the only limit he allows, but complex in so far as the application of this limit requires controversial judgements on a range of issues.” Cartwright discusses how Mill says we have individual freedom, but does not go in depth as to where our freedom stops. The Harm principle as described by John Stuart Mill is both physical and Moral, but what exactly is moral harm and where does it begin? Cartwright says that Mill is unclear in the subject of where moral harm begins, since in order to know this you would have to know the person, as well as what offends them or hurts them. Just because one thing does not offend oneself, does not mean it will not offend someone else.
J C. Rees is another philosopher who has also written about John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty. In his Article A Re-reading of Mill on Liberty in Political Studies he expresses his thoughts on the subject of harm, as described by John Stuart Mill. J C. Rees writes “A man’s interests may well be seriously injured without his equilibrium being affected to any marked degree.” In that sentence he is stating that we may hear someone's outlook on life has changed, because of a religious experience, but it doesn't mean that their interest have changed. J C. Rees thinks that if we claim something should be recognized as a interest, we should be able to support it by reasons that are capable of being made the subject of discussion. Rees’ view, that individual's interests must be affected agrees with Mill’s position, and his definition of interests is a reasonable one, but he seems to relate a person's interest to social recognition by saying that they are dependent on each other. This gives too much normative power to social morality or “the tyranny of the majority” and it goes against mill’s greater argument.
A third critic is Dr. Paul sheehy who writes an article called Doing the Right Thing (Part II): Challenges to Utilitarianism. In his article he speaks about the different views to the concept of utilitarianism and how we are affected by it. This brings him to conclude that “Utilitarianism is a theory which gives expression to the morally important considerations of impartiality, equality and the significance of the outcomes of our actions.” He explains that the major challenge it faces is that it applauds acts which are sometimes obviously morally wrong and also forces us to abandon a commitment to the importance of relationships. Those commitments which appear of central importance in any ethical theory. I agree with Dr. Paul Sheehy and I think this is where individual freedom ties in, because if we do not have individual freedom we might not be able to argue with the majority about the falsehood of their ideas. Dr. Paul Sheehy also mentions the challenge for moral theory is to accommodate the apparent truth that consequences must matter with the equally compelling thought that relationships, commitments and personal perspective must also figure non-instrumentally and in their own right in moral deliberation and judgement. His review of Mill’s Utilitarian concept is clear, and is one that I definitely agree with.
After discussing all 3 philosophers and their views, I realized how much importance they draw to Individual freedom. That is, because Individual freedom gives one the complete liberty to contradict and disprove one’s own opinion. Without that liberty, we would never have the opportunity to rationalize and determine if an idea is philosophically correct. It is through our actions that we test an idea, then come closer to realizing if it is right, or wrong, but even then we do not have a one hundred percent guarantee that we are correct. It is just one step closer to perfect, as we continue to ponder on the idea and see how it is connected to either right or wrong. Having the right to think and express leads to actions, which then can lead to creating the greater good.
John Stuart Mill thinks that we should use our individual freedom in order to help one another, by distinguishing right from wrong and deciding on the right thing over the wrong thing.

By pushing one another to do better and to live a more virtuous life, we are heading towards the greater good. One must have individual freedom in order to rationalize what the greatest amount of good is for the greater number of people. John Stuart Mill states that “If human beings are to live, rather than die—to flourish, rather than stagnate—they need to use their own minds to support their own lives.” In this, he is saying that if we are not flourishing by expressing your own thoughts, then we are stagnate and not growing. If we are stagnate and not willing to think about problems, and ideas, then we are not contributing to society. Not contributing to society can stagnate it, since no one else can think exactly like we ourselves may be able

to.
There are still many things we have to test the waters on, and see how they play, and react in our society. Therefore, how do we know that some of the things being said today aren’t as misleading, as the ideas being said in the past? The truth is that we can’t possibly know everything on every level of certainty, but we can try to create a very well thought out concept of our idea, which can be argued. It is arguments that make an idea grow into a better, and well shaped concept.
All three philosopher I mentioned earlier argue that there is truth, as well as problems to John Stuart Mill’s concepts. They also, mention how Mill’s concepts are more complex, than they really appear to be. Reading the writings of these critics, and both books, On Liberty and Utilitarianism have helped me establish my own thoughts, and opinions. I think that Individual freedom, and utilitarianism are two separate concepts linked to one another. Each concept affecting the other. Therefore making individual freedom a necessity in society in order to create the greatest amount of good for the greatest number. This means that John Stuart mill is philosophically correct in his writings of On Liberty and Utilitarianism.