Mill On Liberty

686 Words2 Pages

1: Summarize briefly the main points of Mills’ theory on liberty
Despite recognising the need for strong governance in a society, Mill saw individual liberty as important. In his publication On Liberty, Mill argued there should be boundaries regarding the level of influence the state can exert over individuals private lives. This can be problematic, however, as these boundaries are rarely clearly defined. Can a state impinge on the rights of certain citizen’s for the good of others?
Mills understood that any one catch-all theory on liberty may not be useful, as societies all over the world have different values. Therefor Mill set out to create a principle that takes into account the values of the society to which it is being applied. Mill …show more content…

He believed an individual has the freedom to think freely and discuss their ideas with others. Using the executions of Socrates and Jesus Christ as an example, Mill states that no society should hold its beliefs to be authoritative.

2. Why is this theory important for the development of democracy?
Although Mill was a great proponent of individual liberty, he also championed democracy. He held liberal and representative democracy in high esteem. Although he accepted that a democratically elected government would limit certain rights of the individual, he felt this governance was important for the development of individual liberty. He felt that individuals could only thrive in a society which protected their individual rights. In this way, citizens could exercise their liberty without interfering with the freedom of others.

Mill felt a liberal democracy would lead to not only enhanced individual liberty, but more efficient government with a strong sense of accountability. Mill was a critic of other forms of government however. He was wary of the “absolute monarchy”, fearing that such a system lends itself to abuse of political power. Absolute power in the hands of a sovereign would hinder individual liberty, and limit the ability of an individual to elect his or her own …show more content…

The idea that one should never act in such a way to harm another is an honourable one no doubt, but is it practical? Much of the confusion stems from the ambiguity of the word harm. It is quite clear that something such as physical violence could harm another, and justifiably violates the harm principle. When we look at something like censorship, however, the ability of the harm principle to deal with situations is unclear. Say someone produces material promoting a new religion. Mill’s ideas surrounding freedom of thought and expression would dictate that this practice is easily justifiable. However, if this material was indoctrinating people, could it be argued it was causing harm? If such a publication is blocked, is harm then being caused to those who wish it to be published> It can be argued that any action, however insignificant it seems, has a knock on effect for someone else and as such has the capability of causing

Open Document