The Nature of Man According to John Stuart Mill - Essay Example

Number The Nature of Man According to John Stuart Mill The topic concerning the nature of human beings has been a popular and controversial focus in both social and political thought. The most elaborate view on this subject matter has been argued by an extremely influential philosophical mind whose essay, On Liberty, remains as the essential starting point for discussion of this problem of democratic society. In his works, John Stuart Mill, develops an argument regarding the nature of individuals and what it means to be a human being. Mill illustrates basic human nature and he disputes whether natural man is compromised or constrained by living in society. Throughout the paper, a detailed discussion will critically evaluate Mill’s contribution to the philosophical understanding to the value of individuality by examining key issues of debate, such as the context of both civil society and civil liberty, the elements of well-being, and an inquiry into social limits or constraints placed over an individual by means of laws and authority figures. In the course of On Liberty, Mill states two principles of demarcation. Although Mill raises serious objections to his first principle that suggests that the “only legitimate grounds for social coercion is to prevent someone from doing harm to others” (Mill, 1978, xv), he then suggests its defect by illustrating a second principle of demarcation. Although stating objections to his own principles, Mill attempts to allow the reader to appreciate the problem that he is addressing and to participate in his critical inquiry. (Mill, 1978, xvi) The basic subject of his essay remains a philosophical necessity, as it explains the “nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual”. (Mill, 1978, 1) As Mill remains a figure of direct contribution, his inquiries uncover the struggle between liberty and authority. Specifically, through a historical context, Mill’s contribution finds itself dealing with the earliest and most familiar area of authority, particularly in that of Greece, Rome, and England. (Mill, 1978, 1) Accordingly, the liberty of an individual associates its meaning as “the protection against the tyranny of the political rulers.” (Mill, 1978, 1) Mill assesses the idea of society and its ability to execute wrong mandates instead of right, in which he claims it “practices a social tyranny” because it objects to the formation of any individuality that may form as a result of independent ideas and practices. (Mill, 1978, 1) Mill continues to debate that authorities drive individuals to act as they would like them to act, in that the regulation of human conduct is measured by the governing regulation of the ruler. (Mill, 1978, 5) Through Mill’s initial principle of demarcation, which identifies that the only grounds for regulation are to prevent harm to others, he finds his basic objection. Mill asserts that “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” (Mill, 1978, 9) Therefore, individuality must be suppressed in order to prevent harm to others; however the problem lies in the suppression of individuality itself. Mill addresses that human liberty comprises: “first, the inward domain of consciousness, demanding liberty of conscience in the most comprehensive sense, liberty of thought and feeling, absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological.” (Mill, 1978, 11) It is only through free and consent participation to society’s sphere that individuality can be maintained. Society has power in forcing opinion and legislation over the individual, which works only to strengthen society and “diminish the power of the individual”. (Mill, 1978, 13) Thus, Mill leads into his discussion regarding the liberty of thought and discussion, as he clearly objects to societal restraint against individual’s ability to form opinions. Mill introduces the idea of constraint, as he suggests that “the government…will often attempt to control the expression of opinion, except when in doing so it makes itself the organ of the general intolerance of the public.” (Mill, 1978, 16) Generally, what this shows us is that even if the government was not at odds with its people and never thinks of exerting power over them, this only can happen so long as the people’s voice is that of the government. (Mil, 1978, 16) Basically, then, it can be suggested that if one person had a different opinion than all of mankind, then mankind would be no more justified to silence that one person just as that one person would be no more justified to silence mankind. (Mill, 1978, 16) Mill is showing that each individual, in a group or alone, has the right to their opinions and feelings which should not be penalized or changed based on legislation or majority rule. Mill claims it is like “robbing the human race” when the expression of opinion is silenced. For Mill, this is an evil in which cannot be justified. However, objections to Mill’s conception may be made, such as the idea surrounding judgment and proper judgment, so to speak. However, for Mill judgment is given to humans and although they may use it how they please, if it is used erroneously, are men told not to use it at all? (Mill, 1978, 18) Thus, it is the duty of all men and governments alike to form the truest opinions they can and to never impose them on others. There are several reasons why Mill includes objections as such within his works. Firstly, he promotes a whole argument with two or more sides, and secondly, he desires to evoke interest in his readers so they may participate as well. Interestingly enough, such a method parallels Mill’s argument itself, as his desire to promote opinions and participation fulfills his argument of individuality, as it should not be persuaded or coerced. Furthermore, Mill addresses individuality as one of the elements of well-being, as he continues with an examination into the freedom from authorities. He believes that political freedom is not the only type of freedom. He claims: “that simple minds, having been taught the obvious grounds of the truths inculcated on them, may trust to authority for the rest…” (Mill, 36) What this suggests is that those who are not intellectuals will rely on authorities to dictate their actions. Likewise, he states that social freedom is another factor that virtually affects the nature of humans and their ability to live as free beings. (Mill, 1978, 54) He argues that public pressure is as strong and powerful as the laws that the state places on individuals within a society. Mill states that a society that shields its people from the conjectures of an authority has succeeded in allowing abuse to prevail. (Mill, 1978, 54) This is a form of society that is seemingly authentic and true in what it provides. Mill describes how the nature of man has been altered by the tyranny of the majority. He illustrates that human nature consists of individual liberty and the ability to freely think and act in society. However, he acknowledges that certain norms must be set within a society in order to restrict immoral activity. (Mill, 1978, 55) Mills claims that there must be a universal agreement to conduct people towards moral actions. (Mill, 1978, 55) Mill suggests that when the government relies on the participation of its citizens in a democratic state, it is threatening individual liberty. He argues that the domination of the majority will take control and decide what the acceptable norms are to be. (Mill, 1978, 56) In this case, the minority must do one of two things; change the views of the majority, or conform to social norms. Mill believes that there is a powerful relationship between individual liberty and government authority. Mill views human nature as having a natural compulsion to take power over one another and force views and opinions upon others. According to Mill, the proper and just way to implement control over a community is to prevent harm to others. (Mill, 1978, 57) Society does not have a right to exercise power over individuals and dictate what they do on a daily basis. Society is solely responsible for the citizen’s protection from one another, as Mill views it. Mill’s premises based on individual freedom of human nature can be divided into concrete elements or principles that clearly outline individuality versus authority: 1. Freedom involves both the individual and authority 2. The individual is not answerable to society for him/herself 3. The individual is only responsible to society when his/her actions inflict harm on the interests of others within the society. Mills views express man as a being that has considerably progressed over time. Mill asserts that the progress of man is linked to the general liberty of humankind, in thought and action (Mill, 1978, 54). Mill’s arguments are quite interesting because he is generally labeled as a utilitarian; however his thoughts in On Liberty purpose that actions are acceptable when they do not impose pain on others within a society. Furthermore, Mill’s argument is in someway reliant on human progression, which can be objected by critics. He views an action as good depending on whether it has utility or not. (Mill, 1978, 56) However, he further suggests that it is a duty to ensure the protection of individuals within the society. (Mill, 1978, 56) Actions that oppose the safety of fellow citizens are to be punished through law. Mill describes law as the socially acceptable norms that society has placed on the individual in order to protect the individual themselves. Mill’s view on authoritative limitations and individual progression can be further outlined, as limitations must exist in order to protect society as a whole. Society has not only presented the individual with liberty for his/her own actions, but also placed essential limitations over this liberty. (Mill, 1978, 62) These limitations strive to ensure that the general interests of the society are guarded. Mill purposes that society has a large impact on individuality in terms of the restrictions that are placed and upheld. Mill illustrates the difference between views or opinions from the public with those individuals, who are not intellectuals, yet have a role within political society. (Mill, 1978, 45) Mill assumes that people within a society are unable to protect their own rights because there is a vast difference between opinions. These opinions are constantly in conflict, which is part of human nature; to undermine one another. Mill presents various reasons to explain why society is willing to obey the authorities within a society. He states that people are generally willing to “receive the authority”, they are prepared to maintain it, and they will conform to the roles enforced on them. (Mill, 1978, 22) Through Mill’s argument, it is clear to associate the idea that it is part of human nature to accept roles dictated by authorities. Yet, Mill also suggests that the society will and can overpower the government authority when it has not fulfilled its proper duties for them. (Mill, 1978, 64) Generally, what Mill is aiming to reveal is that humans have immense power over one another. Humans will compete with one another and struggle to impose their views on each other, yet at the same time, they are willing to work together as one force in order to ensure that order is maintained. Mill assumes that humans are creatures who may easily adapt in promoting the general good of society through participation in decision making and role playing. The nature of human beings, suggested by Mill, is to live life in one’s own way, which is intrinsically valuable. (Mill, 1978, 64) Traditions and customs are overlooked by human nature and “experiments in living” is what mankind surrounds their liberty around. (Mill, 1978, 56) Individuality includes visions of progression and development; however, living in a society full of individuals contains numerous visions with actions that permit a pathway towards that development. Mill’s outlook on man and society is that society limits individual freedom to a certain extent, yet it allows individuals to be protected against the ills of others who wish to inflict harm. Mill’s concept of the individual in society is quite different from that of other philosophical thinkers of the time, such as Rousseau, Machiavelli, and Plato, in that the inequalities of humans derive from society’s restrictions and rules placed on individual actions. Rousseau believed that people’s individual character was formed by the context in which they found themselves, or through politics. (Rousseau, 1987, 144) In The Social Contract, Rousseau attempts to describe a form of politics that will give each person liberty, as he suggests that “man is born free”. (Rousseau, 1987, 141) He claims that the strongest is “never enough to be master all the time”, unless he transforms force into right and obedience into duty. (Rousseau, 1987, 143) He claims that “since no man has a natural authority over his fellow man, and since force does not give rise to any right, then conventions is what remains as the basis for all legitimate authority among men. (Rousseau, 1987, 144) To renounce liberty is like renouncing dignity for Rousseau. He claims that even in law, the majority rule is “itself an established convention, and presupposes unanimity on at least one occasion”. (Rousseau, 1987, 147) In general, Rousseau continues to debate that under bad governance equality is only apparent and illusory. It serves merely to maintain the poor man in his misery and the rich man in his usurpation. In actuality, laws are actually harmful to those who have nothing, rather than to those who have possessions. (Rousseau, 1987, 153) Consequently, Plato’s Republic touches on similar issues of liberty, as he also claims that the strongest individual is able to fight off powers. In his dialogue, he says: “Is it not also true that he who best knows how to guard against disease is also most cunning to communicate it and escape detection?” (Plato, 1961, 583) It is his argument that the just man can also turn out to be a thief, as he tells Socrates, which seems appealing here. Plato continues to suggest that rulers are not infallible and are capable of error. (Plato, 1961, 589) As Plato tells Thrasymachus, “it is in that case surely the disadvantage of the stronger or superior that the inferior are commanded to perform”. (Plato, 1961, 589) Ultimately, Plato’s argument points to the idea that it is not just for a man to follow orders from authority or the strong, even when they error. It seems to be that both Rousseau and Plato form their arguments about individuality and liberty of man around the authorities and how the stronger man, so to speak, does not have a just means to satisfy his or her power over the individual. However, when Plato suggests an example between a pilot and his sailors, it is clear that his argument centers around the “art of naturality”, in which the respect of the pilot’s art justifies the ruling of the sailors. (Plato, 1961, 591) He continues to make reference to the body and how it stands in need of something else, which is what he calls “the art of medicine” and its reason for being invented. (Plato, 1961, 591) Moreover, John Rawls is another philosophical thinker who is known for his “Rawlsian political liberalism”. (Freeman, 2002, 197) In brief, he defends discourse about the basic structure of society, in which he believes that liberalism and democracy are connected, however in conflict. Yet to escape this conflict it would be to escape freedom, both personal and political. (Freeman, 2002, 197) Rawls ideals stem from a perspective that deals with social cooperation, in terms of discussion and go on to debate political equality in that when thinking about justice, we think about something that is justifiable to all reasonable persons, however it cannot inflict on the moral views of the individual. (Freeman, 2002, 255) In general, philosophers have continually debated over the freedoms of the individual and the majority of its discourse often leads to a political notion. Perhaps the reason lies in that politics affects each individual and the whole at the same time. Through politics, individuals are given rules, or laws that must be followed by means of a collective agreement. For Plato, this is not justifiable, yet, for Mill there lies an explanation. Mill suggests that humans collectively develop rules to aid them in their efforts to maximize their happiness. (Mill, 1978, 59) Each of us wants to appropriate goods to satisfy our material needs. But they are scarce, not everyone can satisfy these needs. Given this scarcity of material goods, there will be conflict. If one succeeds in appropriating goods, then others will attempt to take them away to satisfy their own needs. (Mill, 1978, 59) What one more exactly wants is not a maximum of goods but a satisfactory level of goods together with security of tenure. Since each has an end, norms for the distribution of the scarce goods come to be established. Together with these norms of justice there will also come to be established norms for their enforcement, for the punishment of those who violate these norms. These norms with sanctions attached, that is, the norms of justice will function as means to the satisfaction of material desires, but through the associative mechanisms they will come to be sought as ends, as parts of one’s pleasure. (Mill, 1978, 67) Because they concern the essential of human well-being, they therefore come to felt as more morally demanding than the principle of utility itself. The principle of utility judges these norms. Mill is therefore not an “act utilitarian” who holds that the principle of utility is used to judge the rightness or wrongness of each and every act. (Mill, 1978, 63) But neither is he a “rule utilitaria” who holds that individual acts are judged by various moral rules which are themselves judged by the principle of utility acting as a second order principle to determine which set of rules secures the greatest amount of happiness. (Mill, 1978, 65) For the principle of utility judges not simply rules, according to Mill, but rules with sanctions attached. But Mill holds that there are some occasions on which the principle of utility must be used to judge individual acts. There are two sorts of such occasion: One is to judge when exceptions to ordinary rules are to occur or to judge which subsidiary rule applies when two come into conflict. The other is to judge actions aimed at changing the social structure of rules. (Mill, 1978, 74) It is the leaders in “the ruling portion of the community” that must think and plan in this way, those who are in positions of economic or political or moral power that enables them to sway or determine public feeling and sentiments for social change. (Mill, 1978, 87) Furthermore, the last chapter of On Liberty, clearly examines Mill’s overall arguments, as he claims that there are maxims that must be followed. For example, “the individual is not accountable to society for his actions in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself.” (Mill, 1978, 93) Moreover, if an individual’s actions hurt the actions of another, then society may justify his/her punishment for the protection of the other. (Mill, 1978, 93) Mill claims that in terms of cases of personal conduct that are blamable, liberty of the individual precludes society from punishment because simply—what individuals are free to do, are others not also free to counsel? (Mill, 1978, 97) Mill continues to assert that “a general State of education is mere contrivances for molding people to be exactly like one another” (Mill, 1978, 105) and the mold that makes them is exactly the power being exerted by the government to make everyone alike and to conform. It is this instrument of enforcing from an early age that extends from the law, to which the authorities desire. (Mill, 1978, 105) It is like a universal acquisition because Mill objects that there should not be molded universal opinions trapped in the examinations on religion, politics or other disputed topics. (Mill, 1978, 106) Mill lastly states the objections to government interference by stating that when something must be done, it should be done by the individuals themselves because there is no one so fit to determine how or by whom things should be conducted. (Mill, 1978, 106) Also, the last objection claims that it is only fair to an individual’s mental capacity or education to conduct their actions, instead of the government. (Mill, 1978, 108) For Mill, this is basically a method for individuals to practice using their own judgments and strengthen them. It is clear that Mill’s views on individuality of man in relation to society are quite provoking, as his views incorporate the reader to implement his/her own perceptions on the subject. It can be seen that Mill believes ‘natural man’ is corrupted by society because individual limitations are placed in order to promote safety and happiness for the mass. Yet, the clarity of his argument does not seem to satisfy the idea of living together in harmony as such to be social beings. It is extremely necessary for man to associate with one another, as it is seemingly part of human nature. Thus, when a society is formed, man must collaborate together to promote views that the majority agrees with. It is the responsibility of all those citizens living within a society to determine what rules must be morally acceptable and thus enforced. Natural man alone without society is not better off. It is the state of human nature to associate with fellow beings and socialize and re-create. Therefore, it is impossible to say that society corrupts natural man because natural man is a social being. It is important to review how society can work together to promote general happiness, instead of how society corrupts individual happiness, or oppresses it. We cannot avoid the development of society because that is what humans do; they develop. Mill’s three premise based on freedom seem to be quite relevant. He claims that for freedom to exist both the individual and authorities are necessary. This appears correct because individuals more or less have the same views of what freedom is. We should be free to make decisions that are related directly to our lives. We should be free to know that we can walk down the street and feel safe. We should be free to voice our concerns when we feel it is necessary. I think that both the individual and the authorities are capable of working together to limit freedom, in order to promote other more relevant freedoms. What is meant by this is that certain freedoms, such as our ability to kill one another, should be restricted in order to have the freedom of knowledge that we will not be hurt by another individual without penalty. John Stuart Mill’s influential essay surely defines him as a proponent of individuality and a forceful contributor to the philosophical understanding towards individuals and freedom. Mill created a new way of thinking about humans and their state of nature through his own conceptions. For Mill, society has been developed by man in order to work together towards one important cause—to promote general happiness. Generally, it can be agreed that human beings are social beings who strive to work towards a common goal and promote social well-being. Mill seemingly accepts the notion that natural man cannot live in accordance with his natural state without being corrupted by society in one way or another. Man is an individual, but man is also a social being. We cannot live in isolation from one another because our development within society rests upon our collaboration with one another. Each individual’s views and opinions are necessary in order to grow and become open-minded. Furthermore, Mills inference to well-being is nonetheless deceptive because it presupposes that the laws for the social whole are simply the sum of the laws for the individual cases. It can be seen that Mill’s argument at times ignores the causal role of social relations. Mill holds that a greater degree of well-being might be achieved by a different form of social organization. Through Mill’s conceptions on individuality in his works, On Liberty, it is clear that although there are critics that object to his thoughts, he continues to make valid points on liberty and the individual’s ability to achieve happiness. WORKS CITED Freeman, Samuel. (2002) The Cambridge Companion to Rawls. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mill, J.S. (1978) Ed. Elizabeth Rapaport. On Liberty. United States: Hackett Publishing Company Inc. Plato (1961) Ed. Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns. Trans. Paul Shorey. Republic. United States: Princeton University Press. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. (1987) Ed. Donald Cress. Basic Political Writings. Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company. Read More