John Stuart Mill and Liberty. How morality is related to liberty - Essay Example

John Stuart Mill and Liberty John Stuart Mill is considered among one of the fathers of liberalism, who proposed the concept of an expansive liberty with minimal restraint. His work 'On Liberty' is a complete set of principles that addresses the ideal nature and extent of liberty to be exercised by society over an individual. Before discussing the justification of liberty, we would talk about the idea behind liberty and how Mill links liberty to morality1. 'On Liberty' published in 1859 presented not only a philosophy of history and transition but demonstrated his understanding on political and religious developments, and emphasises upon the role of liberty in justifying free development of true philosophic action in England. Comte, while looking at Mill's theologies based on logic, points out that precautions presented by Mill to exercise freedom are unnecessary in France, where he is able to use his public lectures on astronomy as a vehicle to eliminate completely all theological philosophy, even in its simple form of deism, and finally to reduce all moral and social doctrines to rational positivism (Raeder, 2002, p. 56). 'On Liberty' demonstrates Mill's understanding of freedom, as he considered freedom of discussion to be an effective means by which to undermine traditional beliefs, especially theological and religious beliefs and even those where public opinion prevents any real discussion2. Miller was well aware of the fact that lies a significant relationship between freedom of speech, expression and instruction and the erosion of traditional belief. Perspectives of Nature Traditions, beliefs and human morals engages directly with what Mill has mentioned in the late 1850s, as 'nature' and it is because of this nature that humanity suffers through catastrophe, disease and death. Thus it is all interrelated as the distinct attributes of nature which humans disapprove in the name of conservatism and religious fatalism. In order to secure his school of thought, Mill presents two distinct uses of the term 'nature' (Gerson, 2002). The first stance presents a broad and neutral milieu with a more specific and evaluative analysis which states that nature is identical with the entire universe as well as the principles that are followed in the world. Those principles are scientific in nature and fulfills the logic behind natural phenomenons that takes place within our society. For instance, the nature of earthquake is destruction, the nature of volcanoes is to alleviate materialism from the world and so on. Since all human organisms are abide by nature's laws no one can dare to challenge the mother nature as long as he or she stays confined to the universe or as long as human affairs stay within nature's boundaries. Of course an individual must obey the laws of equilibrium to avoid being a victim to the law of gravity or we can say that by following the laws of gravity, one is socially adhere to the physical and biological laws and not by any means can challenge to escape from them. The second school of thought that supports nature is that since society is bound to obey what nature has reserved for it, human beings are themselves certain 'objects' of nature that are unable to deviate from nature. In other words, nature welcomes humanity to understand in context with human will and action. This indicates behind every idea of nature is the involvement of human intention which may serve as the basis for a social agenda. A clear notion is that no one on the earth can claim to be superior to the nature, or there is nothing outside nature and its laws and that, no human being has ever been given a choice to make distinctions between likes and dislikes of nature or to avoid any natural act. Thus Mill defends mother nature with that of human nature, that nature in any form does not ask a human to adopt or reject its principles, for it is a default option that requires no human decision making options and entails no evaluative consequences. How morality is related to liberty Enclosed within nature, human beings hold morality and truth within themselves, which as long as not 'polluted', results in ultimate truth and freedom of soul. By 'polluted' I mean the inner selves of individuals which remain true to find morals. Of course morality and goodness can only be achieved through truth and simplicity. As long as the individual is simple and true in his morals he is close to nature, and close to nature means ultimate truth and freedom. Mill's theory suggests that once an individual seeks morality, goodness itself ranks pleasurable experiences as morality is somewhat directly associated with human consciousness (Donner, 1991, p. 141-142). These pleasurable experiences act like indicators of wisdom deep inside an individual, for they are responsible for evaluating between 'dos' and 'donts' by presenting before an individual the true picture of his or her actions. This way we can presume that Mill constructed a natural world to contain 'intuition' i.e., the value external to the human mind, and that humans discover value by focusing their reason and intuition. This can also be named as 'the process of gaining knowledge of the right and the good' which according to Mill is deeply embedded within the human conscience. Liberty is a process of discovering these self-evident moral truths and since liberty escorts the individual to witness the truth, it also enables the individual to seek and experience only true virtue and truth. Many critics like Donner (1991) are dubious about such experiences as they relate them to intuition, they must acknowledge the notion that it is the ultimate truth and goodness that gives birth to the claims of intuitiveness. Mill's Harm Principle Mill's Harm principle points out that every individual in the society possesses the right to exercise liberty and freedom as long as he is not intended to harm others. Though many authors have perceived different opinions about Mill's definition of harm, but generally what Mill has tried to convince through his 'Harm Principle' is his views on the enforcement of morality, the ideas and persons that influenced his arguments, and his intentions (Hamburger, 1999, p. 5). As a utilitarian, Mill's perspective of liberty is no more than minimal restraint or control3. Emphasising upon intuition and discoveries about what is good and obligatory, Mill presents an objective theory that aspires to utilitarianism in a way that there are no such objective values waiting to be discovered by intuition, what passes for these in intuitionist theories are actually the subjective feelings and prejudices of the judge, uncorroborated by public or social mechanisms or by rational procedures (Hamburger, 1999, p. 6). Mill's conception of moral values is based on the foundation of liberty which shares the opinion that in order to maximise liberty, the power and authority of government and society, must be reduced and that is only possible where 'no harm' principle is applied4. Current interpretations of Mill's principle of liberty emphasises great significance upon its formulation by reference to preventing harm to others. Preventing harm is another word for 'not intending to harm' others, which holds two different meanings. One way it suggests that no individual is allowed by his morals to harm other beings, while the other meaning points out that it is not necessary that an individual does harm other human beings intentionally. Of course an individual is subjected to choose from 'intentional harm' or 'unintentional harm'. Harming or effecting others is one thing while harming others without any intention is another, and this is where Mill has been criticised many times. Intervening with an individual's liberty Mill suggest a simple principle to limit any interference with another's liberty whether it is the state, an individual, or the community, self preventing oneself carries the same weight as preventing harm to others (Carey, 2002). Mills philosophy on religion highlights on the critical elements of Christian belief, which are often ignored in promoting moral character and the well being of society. For example according to Mill all the evil and injustice in this world could not end up in justifying omnipotent and all benevolence of Christian theology. Mill even perceives the belief that life after death is an injustice to this world, for evil acts are threats to humanity for which massive human intervention is essential in order to remedy the wrongs. Therefore Mill's only condition in interfering with a society's or an individual's liberty is that when conceptions of liberty are denied in the context of human nature's paradox. That is when civilisations are challenged by limiting freedom of expression or imposing objections on civil, religious or social freedom. Mill's notion of interference starts with that of justice, since mankind considers justice and its obligations applicable to humanity, nobody desires that it should be regulated by law or nobody appreciates if lawful regulations interfere with an individual's private life. This way an individual tries to get rid of regulations by showing to be either just or unjust in his or her daily life (Troyer, 2003, p. 132). Mill believe that human beings are responsible for making this world transform or to devise all justice and goodness and behind every transformation there is a man-made nature. It would be better to say that transformation is always done by those few who have considered themselves wise and superior to others and have tried to transform history from time to time. There is no such thing as 'force' or 'order' that can be relied upon to guide human action because nature is made to be amended by humans but not by force, but freedom5. Mill's perception of Justice and community For justice according to Mill, humans cannot rely on traditional concepts of God. In fact Mill's motivation for rejecting a traditional perception of God builds a relation between that rejection and his demand for justice. Mill's personal standard of justice was based on the foundation which rejected Christian God by creating a unique conception of god. The reason behind this is that Mill could not accept material or worldly injustice under the umbrella of the conception of the Christian God, therefore he proposed a solution to justice by creating a God meeting his personal standards of rationality and morality. Along with the principle of justice and God, Mill proposed a principle of allegiance, that fostered feelings of sympathy and common interest in the community. Mill's commitment to community and of liberalism's commitment elucidates that condition of sympathy and belonging which according to Mill is responsible for sustaining community. Every individual in he society is liable to participate in any social union, in such a manner that he or she does not regard himself or herself as out of the society or community, as if he or she is a foreigner but must connect with others external to the boundaries of the community6. No nation or community can exist on a long term basis if it is not committed to others in similar circumstance, therefore the idea of unencumbered selves, each pursuing his own personal happiness, without any concern in their actions for the welfare of others, may be seen as anathema to Mill, and to his version of the liberal and the utilitarian philosophies, as it runs counter to the very claims he makes with respect to those expressly detailed principles of social and political union (Mccann, 2002, p. 38). Mill being liberal and utilitarian confines the principle of exercising liberty to that of democracy, and considers it a situation in which the tyranny of the majority is unleashed7. This awareness when acknowledged by laws of nature i.e., human determination and will transforms into intuitive interpretations which as Mill's main argument, agrees to the notion that there must not be any criteria of harming others. Mill's point is justified here that though the notion of preventing harm to others is escorted by intentional or unintentional means, there should be no restriction on leading the lives of individuals. In fact it would be better to conclude that society has no authority to interfere in the lives of individuals for the sake of individuals' own good, not even when it believes that individuals are harming themselves. References Carey W. George, (2002) 'The Authoritarian Secularism of John Stuart Mill', Humanitas. Volume: 15. Issue: 1, p. 107 . Donner Wendy, (1991) The Liberal Self: John Stuart Mill's Moral and Political Philosophy.: Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY. Gerson Gal, (2002) 'From the State of Nature to Evolution in John Stuart Mill', The Australian Journal of Politics and History. Volume: 48. Issue: 3, p. 305. Hamburger Joseph, (1999) John Stuart Mill on Liberty and Control: Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ. John C. Rees, John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985, p. 46 In:Hamburger Joseph (1999) John Stuart Mill on Liberty and Control: Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ. Mill, John Stuart, (1885) On Liberty: John B. Alden: New York. Mill, John Stuart, (1840) 'Coleridge', in Alan Ryan, ed., John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham: Utilitarianism and Other Essays. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Mccann, R. Charles Jr, (2004) Individualism and the Social Order: The Social Element in Liberal Thought: Routledge: New York. Raeder C. Linda, (2002) John Stuart Mill and the Religion of Humanity: University of Missouri Press: Columbia, MO. Rourke, K. C. O., (2001) John Stuart Mill and Freedom of Expression: The Genesis of a Theory: Routledge: London. Troyer John, (2003) The Classical Utilitarians: Bentham and Mill: Hackett: Indianapolis. Read More