John Stuart Mill’s Concept of Freedom: A Critical Analysis
Mill’s Defense Against Criticisms
Mill can defend these criticisms:
- Contradiction between utilitarianism and freedom as an end in itself: It is argued that Mill contradicts himself by claiming happiness as the sole end in itself in his utilitarianism, while also advocating for freedom.
Defense
Freedom and virtue are means to achieve happiness. Through association, they become part of happiness itself.
- Leaving important matters to experts instead of the majority: It is suggested that crucial decisions should be entrusted to experts rather than the majority.
Defense
Mill aims to prevent the tyranny of the majority and acknowledges the fallibility of experts. Experts’ imposition of findings can suppress individual freedom and lead to unhappiness.
Critique of Mill’s Position
While acknowledging the significant step towards individual freedom, we must point out that:
- Vagueness of the utilitarian principle: The utilitarian principle lacks a clear boundary between offensive and harmful actions. The application of this limitation is influenced by political and moral considerations, varying across societies.
In international politics, this vagueness seems to justify “state paternalism” towards “uncivilized” peoples, a characteristic of Victorian England. This is still used today to justify interference in other countries’ affairs without a clear criterion. In moral behavior, it risks relegating actions deemed offensive but not harmful to the underground or private sphere. The argument of individual maturity in resisting certain practices while being immature in others is unacceptable and appears based on personal or social acceptance levels.
- Neglect of social equality: While Mill’s concern for freeing individuals from social barriers is commendable, he overlooks the fact that genuine freedom requires social equality.
His emphasis on judicial and educational freedom is valuable, but his advocacy for a state that does not control the labor and financial market, characteristic of the liberalism of his time, is problematic. This led to the “aggressive capitalism” of the 19th century and is incompatible with the state’s role in preserving individual liberty. In a “free market,” true equality between owners of the means of production and workers is absent. Today, we recognize that state control, through laws safeguarding workers’ inalienable rights, has been crucial in mitigating this inequality and fostering a new middle class. However, this situation is not universal, and economic liberalism has not proven to be a valid program for achieving Mill’s stated objectives. Furthermore, birth control based on individual economic criteria, while existing in some countries, is no less discriminatory.
- Ignoring the paradox of democracy: Mill seems to disregard the potential for freedom of expression and individual action, which may be merely offensive at the time, to generate future prejudice. This exposes us to the paradox of democracy or intolerance.
Therefore, any intolerant and undemocratic demonstration should be prohibited, as its seductive effects on the population can undermine the project of freedom. This is necessary, at least until humanity reaches the full moral development envisioned by Mill, if that is possible.
Personal Position: Towards an Open Society
Unable to rely on leaders and wary of Mill’s perfect historical optimism, I propose an “open society” characterized by:
- Emphasis on public education and moral development.
- Maximum respect for individual freedoms.
- Clear division of powers and control of their independence.
- Guarantee of social equity.
- Intolerance of intolerance.