John Stuart Mill’s Philosophy: Liberty and Social Justice
Chapter Five: Mill’s Philosophy on State Intervention and Individual Freedom
Mill argues for liberal non-intervention in the labor market, industrial, financial, judicial, and educational sectors. He emphasizes ensuring the quality of both public and private education, avoiding dogmatic state control, and upholding the state’s duty to prevent the loss of individual freedom, even if it is consensual. In this line, he states that the state should not punish laziness or drunkenness if they do not cause prejudice to others. He advocates for respecting the sale of alcohol, gambling, prostitution, and freedom of consensual sexual behavior, although pimping, gambling houses, and extramarital relationships should be limited to the private sphere. The state must allow divorce and monitor compliance with the parental duty of feeding and educating children, preventing all forms of abuse and gender violence, and exercising population control.
Comparison of Plato’s and Mill’s Concepts of Liberty
Differences:
- They have different conceptions of human nature: moral perfection is reserved for the few (Plato) or all (Mill).
- They have different conceptions of the historical process: it is linear, leading to a totalitarian state (Plato), or straight, requiring a state that respects individual freedom (Mill).
- They propose different ways to achieve happiness and social justice: through educational conditions of censorship and lies useful to the state (Plato) or by an education that respects individual freedom (Mill).
Similarities:
- Both claim the perfect correspondence between the development of intellectual and moral abilities.
- Their respective theories are based on hypothetical principles: the existence of philosopher-kings who know the moral truth (Plato) and that moral truth is available to all (Mill).
- Both theories can be criticized as utopian: Plato relies on an education system capable of forming perfect rulers, while Mill believes the constant development of the human spirit will lead us to conceive that our happiness is tied to the happiness of others.
Mill on Freedom: Chapters One and Two
We must protect against political despotism and also the tyranny of the majority in democratic governments because people’s opinions are often the result of prejudices, superstitions, wishes, passions, fears, and social conditioning. Thus, Mill establishes that power should only be exercised against the will of a member of a “mature” community or state to avoid harming others—not to prevent displeasure or offense—and not to improve them physically or morally. In any other situation, freedom of thought and action on scientific, moral, and religious matters must be respected, as well as freedom of assembly and association.
Reasons for Protecting Freedom of Thought and Action
- Because no one is infallible, and any opinion can be true.
- Because, although materially false, an opinion may contain some truth.
- Because, if it is totally false, banning it will not allow for free, open, and honest discussion—without bad faith, sophistry, bigotry, and intolerance—to strengthen the true opinion, which might otherwise be accepted dogmatically. Thus, when the truth has prevailed, the objective is objective and thoughtful teaching.
- For all these reasons, the mode of thinking and living of any person, with a minimum of experience and common sense, is the best because no one is more interested in their own welfare and knows the circumstances of their case better.
Chapter Four: Key Points
- The origin of society is not contractual.
- The individual will compensate for social protection by not harming the interests of others—without violating their rights, even if they disapprove—and by cooperating in the defense of society.
- Others may advise, exhort, express their dislike, avoid someone’s company, and warn others against them, but they must not discriminate in violation of their rights.
- To those who argue that every action affects others, Mill says that the evil that may be caused, if it does not harm, is outweighed by the existence of freedom and shows others to be inadequate. Social intervention has no legitimacy after the education of the individual in matters of personal conduct because it confounds prejudice with offense and tends to impose one’s own ratings on others.