Title: Mills Tolerant Liberty
Question; Critically evaluate J. S. Mill’s argument for liberty and toleration.
Candidate Number; 1403928
Word Count; 1,491
Society’s struggle to achieve a balance between the liberty of the individual, and institutions of power restricting an individuals freedom, plays a critical role in every type of power based relationship. This struggle is visible between a student and teacher, a child and parent; and even more so between power structures and individuals. The struggle is a complex one with countless theories aimed at defining and solving it - one of the most influential being British philosopher, political theorist, and the father of utilitarianism, John Stuart Mills account of liberty and its dictating doctrines; tolerance and the harm principle. His emphasis on individuality and tolerance is the iconic aspect of his take on this struggle; stressing that the primary role of power structures are to enhance the autonomy and individuality of its people. In his analysis on Liberty, Tolerance, and Authority in his book, On Liberty, Mill proposes principles and measures aimed to regulate a governments authority to restrict our individual liberties. These principles, though extremely detailed and persuasive, contain holes in the scope of government regulation and the Harm principle; resulting in this work being a strong guideline for protecting individual freedoms instead of being what Mill intended, a constructed recipe governments and societies can follow.
In his introduction to On Liberty, Mill proclaimed that “the object of [the] essay” would be to propose principles that would “govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties or the moral coercion of public opinion” (On Liberty, 12). It is clear that when examining liberty and that which impairs it, Mill did not take a one dimensional perspective that critiques only the physical and tangible coercion i.e that of the law - he also recognises the unwritten power in the hands of society that can infringe on the liberty of individuals. This allows the scope of his argument for individual liberty to widens to include criticism of instances of harm that surpass the realms of legality. For example; homosexuality is not criminalised in Poland, however it is unaccepted in society, and there is often violence involved against the LGBT community. In this instance, legally, the LGBT community is not persecuted, however, in actuality, due to social pressure and conventions, individuals freedom to express their sexuality is infringed upon. Their freedom to live autonomously and make decisions as consenting adults is hampered by the intolerance of their community. This intolerance deprives these individuals of living freely and to the maximum productivity possible. Mill calls upon his harm principle to address this.
Mills final goal for the individual is for them to become autonomous agent. With this in mind, the parameters he set were based on the notion that they would maximise individual autonomy - enhance individual liberty and self determination. The Harm principle is the central doctrine utilised in determining the parameters on when governments and social institutions of power may restrict individuals liberties. It states; liberty should only be restricted in cases where an individual may cause harm in anyway to others. However, an individuals freedoms and liberties may not be limited for their own good. It is not sufficient to violate an individuals freedom because their actions are perceived as harmful to themselves alone. These actions must be tolerated by the community and authorities as it affects the individual alone. In so many words, Mill is simply saying that when actions affect only the individual, it should not be regulated, i.e recreational drug use, etc. On the other hand, if an individual commits an action that somehow harms and infringes on another’s liberty, said action is subject to be regulated and infringed upon.
This Harm Principle on its own is sensible and in fact promotes the happiness promised by utilitarianism; it provides individual freedom, whilst protecting people from infringement on their rights. However, the flaw with this part of the principle is that it states that all actions that can be deemed harmful to another are subject for regulation. The parameters of what is considered ‘harmful’ to a person is somewhat ambiguous. Almost every action can be argued to cause some sort of harm to another; from buying a product from a company that exploits their labourers, to using electricity using up resources and polluting. These actions, though not a direct harm to anyone, can be argued to be supportive of harmful individuals or institutions. Another drawback of the principle however occurs as Mill claims acts of not acting such as not saving a drowning child, or failing to pay taxes, are all acts that cause harm to another and can be regulated. This is problematic because if looked at differently, not paying taxes, etc are not acts of harm, they are acts of neglect. They are incidents where important action is failed to be taken and a benefit is not provided - this can not be equated to causing harm, it is simply lack of action. This gap in the harm principle is not addressed by Mill in his works, however, he does produce some parameters for his doctrine.