Trip Adler

Moral Reasoning 72
Shorter Paper #2
3/2/05
Mill’s Argument on Slavery Contracts

In his essay On Liberty, John Stuart Mill makes the argument that all slavery

contracts are never valid. To define terms, a slavery contract is an engagement between

two people in which one person sells himself or allows himself to be sold as a slave. As a

slave, he has no liberty, and his last act of liberty was allowing himself to become a slave.

To understand why Mill argues against slavery contracts, we must understand his

philosophies starting with the basics. At the very bottom is the idea that the one basic

goal of humans is the fullest development and exercise of the highest human capacities,

for all of us, now and in the future. The idea of always working toward this goal is his

version of utilitarianism. With this in mind, Mill believes that the best way to move in

this direction is to protect the basic liberties of humans. This means that the social

regulation of an individual cannot be justified if the behavior of that individual does not

harm others. As long as his conduct only affects himself, this individual liberty helps

with utility and the effort of man to be a progressive being.

Mill makes the point that liberty of the individual, that is, in things that only

involve the individual, implies a corresponding liberty in a group of more than one

individual to regulate the things that involve the group but no one else. If the will of the

individuals in the group changes, then as a general rule the engagements of the group

members should be kept. But if the engagement is injurious to those within the group,

then each member has the liberty to release himself from the group.
 In the case of a slavery contract, the engagement is between the slave and the

slave-owner. Normally Mill would argue that one individual has the liberty to make the

decision to become a slave, and if he makes this voluntary choice, he has thought about it

and has decided that there is a good reason to become a slave. But Mill argues that this

case of a slavery contract is unique, and this argument does not apply. The reason is that

this one act of liberty, ends his liberty. As discussed above, within an engagement in

which two individuals are bound to each other, the individuals have the freedom to

release from the group if the situation is injurious to them. But a slave cannot do this.

This does not fit with the principle of freedom, because freedom cannot allow the lack of

freedom. Because the purpose of liberty is to promote utility, the lack of freedom

involved in a slavery contract will negatively affect human capacities.

Mill’s argument against slavery appears on the surface to contradict the rest of his

argument in On Liberty. The reason for this is that he constantly mentions that allowing

individuals to make their own decisions without social regulation, as long as they do not

harm others, is necessary for mankind. However, he provides just this one instance, in

which allowing one person to make a decision that only affects himself, is null and void.

Of course this seems like a contradiction, but would Mill really have a flaw like this in

his masterpiece? The argument against slavery contracts does cohere with the rest of the

essay, because of the way he carefully states that this is a unique example. Because it is

one situation in which freedom of decision leads to no freedom of decision, this one

particular instance cannot be treated with the same argument used in the rest of the essay.

However, Mill could have made it more clear earlier on in On Liberty, that this exception

to individual liberty does exist.