Individual Freedom and Societal Limits: A Detailed Analysis
Summary of the Limits of Authority of Society Over the Individual
*Origin of Non-Contractual Society*
This section outlines the principles governing the relationship between individual liberty and societal authority.
*Individual Responsibilities Within Society*
The individual must contribute to the protection that society provides by:
- Not harming the interests or rights of others.
- Cooperating in the defense of society.
*Limits on Societal Punishment*
Society cannot punish harmful acts committed by individuals of sound mind and ordinary discernment against themselves, or against others if those acts do not violate others’ rights, even if society disapproves of those acts.
*Respect for Individual Autonomy*
No one is entitled to impose conduct on a mature individual other than what that individual believes is in their best interest. No one is more interested in an individual’s well-being than the individual themselves, and no one knows the circumstances of their case better. Others may offer advice and encouragement, but they cannot impose what they deem beneficial.
*Freedom of Association and Expression of Dislike*
In exercising our own freedom, we can avoid someone’s company without making a show of it and express our dislike. We can choose to serve others as long as it does not involve injustice or prevent improvement. We have the right, and possibly the duty, to warn others against someone, but without disrupting their lives as enemies of society.
*Actions Subject to Moral Reprobation and Punishment*
However, certain actions warrant moral reprobation and, in serious cases, hostility and punishment. These include:
- Violation of others’ rights.
- Inflicting any loss or damage not justified by one’s own rights.
- Falsehood or duplicity in dealing with others.
- Illegal or ungenerous use of advantages over others.
- Selfish abstention from defending others against evil.
*Criticisms and Responses*
Some critics argue that no individual action is harmless to society because:
- Each individual action directly or indirectly affects those closest to them and, to a lesser extent, those more distant.
- One’s example may be detrimental.
However, as John Stuart Mill argues, those who believe this should also consider that the example of negative consequences resulting from justly censured conduct is generally more beneficial than harmful.
*Societal Intervention for Those Unable to Govern Themselves*
Critics also argue that society is obliged to intervene against those unable to govern themselves. Mill responds that society has had absolute power over individuals throughout the early part of their existence, including childhood and youth, to try to make them capable of rational conduct. If society allows a significant number of its members to grow up like children, incapable of acting based on rational considerations, it is society itself that should be condemned for the consequences.
*Societal Monitoring and Punishment of Harmful Conduct*
Many believe that society must monitor and punish conduct that experience has proven futile and inappropriate for both the individual and society. Some consider conduct they dislike as an offense, an insult to their feelings. It is easy to imagine an ideal age where individuals have freedom and choice in all uncertain matters, and are only required to refrain from conduct condemned by universal experience.
However, we must be wary of the universal human propensity to extend the limits of what might be called “moral policing” to stifle legitimate individual freedoms. Mill cites examples such as the Muslim prohibition of eating pork, the Catholic rejection of Protestant clergy marriage, the rejection by Puritans, Calvinists, and Methodists of music, dance, theater, and other entertainment, the American Prohibition, the democratic tendency to consider it immoral to stand out, and interference in foreign affairs such as Mormon polygamy, where the “victims” are not aware of being such.