John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty of Thought and Discussion"

(shorter version)
John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty of Thought and Discussion"
(shorter version)

1. What are some of the evils caused by silencing an opinion?

2. How does Mill answer the argument that we can forbid discussion
because we must act on the basis of the knowledge that we have?

3. How does he deal with the argument that although some opinions
are untrue, they are socially valuable and should be protected?

4. Why do you think he chooses beliefs concerning God and a future

state as test cases for discussion of opinion? Does this choice make his
argument more or less persuasive?

5. Which historical examples of the suppression of opinion does he

choose, and why?

6. How does he answer the argument that truth will survive

persecution anyway?

7. What is his argument against denial of the right to give legal

evidence to those who will not profess belief in a god?

8. Is his belief that religious persecution could revive in England

consistent with his view that England has a free press?

9. What does he believe are British attitudes towards those with

heretical opinions?

10. What is the effect of suppression of free opinion on individuals and

groups?
11. Even if an opinion is true, are there reasons why it should be
further discussed?

12. What example does he use of a once powerful series of beliefs now
held by rote?

13. Does Mill believe there will be doctrines which will not be
disputed? Is his belief that the number of uncontested opinions will
increase consistent with his earlier comments on the need for freedom
of discussion?

14. What features does Mill feel are lacking from contemporary
education?

15. What are features of Christian ethics which seem limiting to Mill?

16. How does he answer those who would only permit temperate
discussion?

17. Are there any defenses of free discussion which Mill has omitted?

How would you characterize his style and argumentative method?

Longer version

Introduction

J. S. Mill was one of the most eclectic, thorough and comprehensive

European thinkers of his century, and virtually the only one to be
systematically preoccupied with reconciling the claims of the
individual with those of a group. In his Autobiography Mill sees
himself as the synthecizer of great trends of his day; On Liberty is
important as an attempt to arbitrate between some of the assumptions
of nineteenth-century individualism, libertarianism, and utilitarianism
and early socialism (represented in his case by the political persuasions
of his father and wife respectively).
It is perhaps not a coincidence that On Liberty, among other things a
great document of political liberalism, appeared in the same period as
poetic assertions of individual perception and emotion, and of
mercantile demands for laissez-faire; one can find, for example,
parallels between Mill's thought and that of Alexis De Tocqueville,
Matthew Arnold, and Florence Nightingale.

Mill was a chief adminstrator of the East India Company; the author
of treatises on a wide range of subjects in psychology, logic, religious
thought, and politics; a lifelong journalist and essayst; the editor of
the Westminister Review; a member of Parliament; and the author of
the first bill for women's suffrage. His Autobiography, considered
perhaps the finest example of a Victorian intelletual autobiography
and a model for its genre, repesents a psycholgicaly acute and
introspective explanation of the genesis, internal tensions, and
personal limitations which both activated and constricted his
intellectual preoccupations and achievements.

On Liberty results from a passion for social freedom, balanced by

scrupulous concern with procedures and determination to synthesize
seeming opposites of opinion into a more comprehensive unity, and
the Autobiography reveals the origin of these temperamental and
mental characterics. In so doing Mill presents a paradigmatic
document in the history of education, an unusually astute analyis of
mental depression and a sense of alienation, and a documentation of a
Victorian intellectual's problem of the separation of human affection
and emotion from work, analysis, and sequential, rational thought. On
Liberty is a tribute both to the effectiveness of his father's systematic
training and to the healing powers of his intellectual partnership with
his wife, with whom he wrote his boldest defenses of human
freedom, On Liberty and the Subjection of Women.

At least in 1859, what did Mill see as the chief threat to political liberty
in the nineteenth century?
--the popular will, lack of restraints to majority control, 5, 15; the
"self-government" spoken of is not the goerment of each by himself
but each by all the rest.

[It has been estimated that in 1859 about 5% of adult persons could
vote in Britain (as a result of the Reform Bill of 1832); in 1867 about
10% of adults could vote.]

According to Mill, in what ways does the majority enforce its opinion
other than through civil laws?

--6, enslaves the soul itself, hinders individuality

In which country(ies) may be seen the evils of majority rule?

--the United States, 5; yet in 1859 in the U. S. the majority of persons

could not vote.

--in Britain, since rule is more by majority opinion than by

government

Do you think Mill's fears were valid for their time? (during the early
and mid-Victorian period, restrictions on plots were imposed by
Mudie's Circulating Library; religious restrictions limited enrollment
and teaching at Oxford and Cambridge; severe restrictions limited
female occupations and property ownership)

What do you think of Mill's contention that in some respects resistence

to pressure was easier in former centuries?

According to Mill, whose opinions now determine social morality?

--those of the dominant class, 8; its feelings of class superiority are

upheld in the public domain (cmp. Marx)

What have been some defects of previous moralists?

--8, "They have occupied themselves rather in inquiring what things
society ought to like and dislike, than in questioning whether its likings
or dislikings should be a law to individuals . . . ."

Does Mill feel British religious tolerance is a good sign for the future?

--9, intolerance still exists where issue of great concern

According to Mill, what is the sole purpose for which governmental

power can be exercised over an individual's actions?

--when these would harm others or society, 11; cannot legislate for an
individual's alleged own good

Whose rights should not be protected?

--11, children's rights

His comments on children's rights here should be read in the context

of his later comments on the need to protect children from excessive
paternal control.

--those of "backward" or "barbarian" civilizations [a general

Victorian blind spot, but also Mill was an administrator for the East
India Company; although children may attain maturity, Mill does not
here allow for any process by which British colonies might obtain self-
rule, or a series of steps toward learning and practicing self-rule]

According to Mill, are there things a individual can be compelled to

do?

--12, bear share in the common defense; give evidence in court; save a
fellow creature's life; protect the defenseless

What rights of the individual does Mill have in mind beside political
liberties?
--13 domain of conscience and liberty of opinion; expression of
opinion; liberty of tastes and pursuits; liberty of combination and
association

What changes make Mill fear that we are experiencing a diminishment

of civil liberties?

--15, growth of Puritanism

--power of society increasing as government repression has declined

--power of religion to control opinion has increased, 14-15

--power of individual decreasing

What difficulties of definition or competing claims might there be in

making this distinction? What examples does Mill himself seem to
have most in mind?

II. "Of Liberty of Thought and Discussion"

1. What are some of the evils caused by silencing an opinion?

(deprives others of right to exchange error for truth 18; deprives

others of livelier perception of truth produced by its collision with
error; we can never be sure an opinion is false; no one can see his/her
blind spots 19)

And even if we could be sure, stifling is an evil--why?

--can only act on our opinions if we permit the possibility of

contradiction to test these opinions, 20

--makes overarching statements without overstatement--carefully

modulated statement of extreme opinion--controlled sarcasm, 20

How does Mill answer the argument that we can forbid discussion
because we must act on the basis of the knowledge that we have?
--must keep issues open, only by keeping a doctrine open to debate can
we render it true, 20

--human progress has occurred through correction of errors through

experiment and interpretation, 21; truth evolves from century to
century, 22

--can only be sure of truths by examining and collating all partial

points of view, by listening to criticism, 21; only then "we may rely on
having attained such approach to truth as is possible in our own day,"
22

--gives example of an almost certain belief in Newtonian philosophy,

which he nonetheless thinks should continue to be reexamined;
interestingly, since the Victorian period views on matter and gravity
have indeed been modified with time (and there are many other
examples from the history of science)

How does he deal with the argument that some opinions are not true
but socially valuable, and should therefore be protected?

--the usefulness of an opinion is of itself a matter of opinion, 23

no belief which is contrary to truth can be really useful

Why does Mill choose beliefs concerning God and a future state as test
cases for discussion of opnion? Does this choice make his argument
more or less persuasive? For the Victorian period, these would have
been the most significant issues, 24, and would have been at the
forefront of everyone's mind.

Which historical examples of the suppression of opinion does he

choose, and why?

--Socrates and Christ were persecuted, Marcus Aurelius, though a

tolerant philosopher, persecuted Christians, 27, St. Paul an early
persecutor
--those who persecuted Christ were respectable men of their time, 25-
26

--it is an irony that those who were persecuted are now persecuting
others

How does he answer the argument that truth will survive persecution
anyway?

--28, cruel; inhibits new ideas

--28, 29, also this is untrue; truth has been successfully suppressed

What is Mill's argument against the denial of the right to give legal
evidence to those who will not profess belief in a god?

--this is a legal not social discrimination

--only atheists who will lie are permited civil liberties, 30-31

These observations have the sting of personal resentment.

Is Mill's belief that religious persecution could revive in England

consistent with his view that England has a free press? (31, 17)

When the issue concerns him, Mill takes legal penalties seriously--
doubtless he suffered from prejudice against agnostics.

What does Mill believe are British attitudes toward those with
heretical opinions?

--32, peroration on social prescriptions--the unconventional are

prevented from earning their livelihood.

--even if thinkers are not hurt, we hurt ourselves, 32 Why? A great

indictment; he felt deeply on this issue

What is the effect of the suppression of free opinion on individuals and

groups?
--limits moral courage of human beings, 32-33

--would stifle thinkers from following the conclusions of their thought,

33; this applies both to great thinkers, 33 and to average human beings
34

--we have a need for an era of thought--general cultural progress

requires the intellectual activity of people, which is only possible with
mental freedom, 34

--even error can add to truth: "Truth gains more even by the errors of
one who, with due study and preparation, thinks for himself, than by
the true opinions of those who only hold them because they do not
suffer themselves to think," 33.

Even if an opinion is true, why should it be discussed?

--truth must be discussed to form a living dogma, 34-35 [this had been
mentioned earlier, p. 20]; "truth held in ignorance is but one
superstition the more," 35

--all except mathematical truths admit of more than one opinion, 36--
even here, 20th-21st century science and mathemathics admits the
possibilty of multiple universes

--truth depends on the balance beween conflicting reasons, 36; since

judgments are complex, much of understanding a disputed opinion
consists of "dispelling the appearances which favor some opinion
different from it."

--one cannot really know one's own case until one knows the other
side, 37; one must hear the opposition speak persuasively; if good
opponents don't exist, one will even have to imagine their arguments

If opinions are suppressed, even the meaning of a belief will be

forgotten, 38-39, and the words which convey it will become empty

--40, prevents other forms of learning

What example does Mill use of a once powerful series of beliefs now
held by rote?

--Christianity, 39-41

--long digression on nominal Christiaity--nominal belief prevents real

belief, 40

--states what would have seemed to many extreme views in simple

laconic form, 40

--dry irony, 41

Does Mill believe there will be doctrines which will not be disputed? Is
his belief that the number of uncontested doctrines wil increase
consistent with his earlier comments on freedom of discussion? 42

--sense of determinism--range of controversy will contract, 423

--Socratic dialogues reopened definitions of received opinion

--even church disputations to some degree opened debate

Which features does Mill believe are lacking from contemporary

education?

--43, debate, after Socratic pattern; the promotion of analyses and

critiques of opponents' positions

--44, must study opponents' opinions, should practice the ability to

point to weaknesses in theory and practice

--Conflicting doctrines may each contain a partial truth--heresies

reflect partial insights--all are need to counterbalance each other, 46

--defense of pluralism--all have some truth, 46; one needs to learn

from the minority
His great example, again, is religion; what are features of Christian
ethics which seem limiting to Mill?

--even Christianity a partial guide--a negative rather than positive

ideal, 47; teaches submission to the reigining authority, obedience, no
sense of service to the state

--agains he reiterates that many of the best people have been

irreligious, 49

--opposes narrow religious conception of education

--evil of suppression, 50; free discussion prevents rigidity of idea

How does Mill answer those who would only permit temperate or
moderate discusson? 651

--people judge what is temperate differently

--moderation will prevail anyway, for a reasoned argument is more

persuasive, 52

Are there any defenses of free discussion which in your view Mill has
omitted?

--individuals learn by pursuing the truth they have

What final comments does he make on the real morality of public

discussion?

-- 52, need to give full weight to opponent's ideas

What are some features of Mill's mode of argument?

--gentle sarcasm of argument, 18-19, 40, 101

--argues opponents' views carefully, 19ff

--able to state the same arguments without repetitive wording, 53--
either briefly or at length

III. "Of Individuality, as One of the Elements of Well-Being"

1. What do you think of his opening example of an instance where the

suppression of an opinion is justified? Does it contain latent biases or
assumptions?

--His cited instance is the handing out of a placard stating that

property is theft (Proudhon) to an assemblage of people gathered in
front of an official's house.

Is this consistent with Mill's earlier defense of free speech?

--This would seem to be a case where the utility of anarcho-

revolutionary views is open to debate, and where the opinions of
several factions may contain truth. Religious people feel atheistic
doctrines promote infidelity and consequent risk of hell, yet Mill has
argued that they must permit the expression of contrary views. Surely
property is a less important issue than that of a supposed eternal
punishment.

Possibly he's unable to apply his own views to political as opposed to

religious issues?

2. What does Mill argue are some advantages of diversity for

individual character?

--necessary for choice, 55; choice itself a necessary mental and moral
activity, 55

--absorbs all faculties, 56 perfects man himself

--strength of impulse is the basis of good and of character, 57

--we now have a deficiency of personal impulses, 58; attacks

conformity, 58
--development of character is the food of life, 59

--others can learn from these developed characters, 60

--genius needs freedom, the few original minds are the salt of the
earth, 61

--persons of genius are more original, 61

3. What does Mill believe about the nature of men in a group?

--masses are by definition a collective mediocrity, 62

--masses need to be governed by one or the few, cmp. Fabians, Carlyle,

63

Mill here exhibits the standard 19th century liberal fear of the
"mob"--the masses will sink to the lowest common denominator of
activity. He is unable to see any creative potential in group social
interaction, only tyranny. As his Autobiography shows, he himself often
collaborated with and benefited from the efforts of other like-minded
young men, but these collectivities were small.

To be fair to Mill, he was a steady proponent of wider public

education, so that the masses, whom he wished to benefit from
universal suffrage, would use their vote in an informed maner.

4. What does Mill see as the dominant character of the time, and what
is needed to counteract this?

--eccentricity is needed to balance the conformity of the time, 63

5. Is contempt for individuals in a mass consistent with the doctrine of

individuality? How does Mill reconcile (or does he reconcile) belief in
individual freedom with his belief in the worth of a "merely average
man"? He seems interested in each individual when (or insofar as
he/she is) distinguished from the group.
--There may be a kind of tension, perhaps, between democratic values,
often promoted through group agitation for the vote, etc., and fear of
"mob rule" and the levelling down of mass opinion.

6. Also with his mistrust of collective groups, Mill conveys a real sense
of the value of individual mental achievement.

Does this seem inconsistent with his emphasis elsewhere on the

common man's need to follow the "one or few"?

--elsewhere he emphasizes different needs for spiritual development of

different kinds of people.

Compare Ruskin's horror at standardized art with 63, "That so few

now dare to be eccentric marks the chief danger of the times"?

--comic reversal, "Human beings are not like sheep," 64 (Victorian

audiences would have heard the Messiah frequently, with its great
chorus, "All we like sheep, have gone astray"). Mill has the power of
deflecting or subverting a metaphor by analysis.

7. Again, Mill is concerned with the legal sanctions on individuality.

What examples does he give of this?

--institutionalization for insanity, deprivation of property, 65

In the 19th century many were deprived of the right to will their
estates by religious nonconformity, and at least in some places, a
person declared officially "insane" lost all right to the disposition of
their property. Annie Besant lost her right to her children because she
was an atheist.

Are these issues ever the focus of civil libertarian dispute today?

8. What does Mill claim is the Victorian ideal of character?

--ideal of character is to have no character, like the binding of a

Chinese lady's foot, 65
9. According to Mill, the greater part of the world has no history
because the despotism of culture is complete (cmp. George Eliot's
sense of "unremembered histories"). Would Mill's view be shared by
modern historicans and sociologists, who study the culture of
populations rather than individuals?

10. What does Mill see as a dominant conflict within history?

--conflict between progress and custom, 66

Are there any limitations to this view?

11. Why, according to Mill, do some cultures cease to prgress?

--conformity, 67

12. What example does he give of a custom-dominated people?

-- the Chinese, 67 What political conflicts may underlie this cultural

bias? (Opium Wars, British desire to "open up" China to trade,
foreign missions, and other influences)

13. According to Mill, what kind of change characterizes modern

Europe?

--all change together

14. According to Mill, what has prevented Europe from following the
Chinese example?

--68 variety

15. What kinds of social pressure and recent forms of Victorian change
does his argument seem to reflect?

--69 increased standardization, mass literacy, education, urbanization,

transportation. Many other observers, such as Ruskin in Modern
Painters and "The Nature of Gothic," had defined their age as one of
turbulent and restless change.
--Almost veers into an argument for the aristocracy! 69 (cmp. Arnold
in Culture and Anarchy)

He concludes with a good final epigram and peroration, "Mankind

speedily becomes unable to conceive diversity, when they have been for
some time unaccustomed to see it," 69.

IV. "Of the Limits to Authority of Society Over the Individual

Society can enforce that each indivdual bear his/her share of the
common good. (includes conscription)

1. Should humans promote each other's welfare? (70-71) Yes, but can't
enforce their recommendation

2. What methods may properly be used to influence the behavior of

others?

--71-74, persuasion, exhortation, disapprobation, warning--a rather

stern and intrusive view

--yet people know their own circumstances best, 71

3. Why can't one forbid an individual to contract vicious or harmful

habits? 75

--will suffer the natural evil consequences him/herself, 74

--only a social concern if people actively harm others, 76

He favors a morality based on obligations rather than on puritanical

judgments.

4. Why should one not punish self-destructive or immoral activity on

the grounds that it sets a bad example? 78

--example displays degrading consequenes of the action as well

5. When can one punish drunkenness, if at all?

--When they hinder the performance of a public duty, as when a
soldier or policeman is drunk on duty, 76; see remarks under V on his
failure to deal with the misrepresentations of advertising. Often people
may be unaware of the consequences of a certain behavior, or at least
not fully aware.

6. What other examples does he give of potential controversial

infringements on individual rights?

--prescription of Sunday amusements, Blue Laws ( fairly serious

matter when working-classes had only one free day each week)

--sale of (and consumption of liquors)--Temperance Alliance--

Prohibition (Maine Laws)

--again, chiefly fears religiously motivated suppressions.

7. Why does he see the work of labor unions as a form of suppression

of liberty?

--enforcement of a standard wage by unions, which suppresses the

artisan's right to do better work, or to sell piecework [Here Mill
ignores the overwhelming effect of the prohibition of collective
bargaining, as the indvidual artisan is bargained down, not up, at the
pain of loss of employment.] See comments below regarding p. 82,
where he takes up the issue again.

8. Are any infringements of personal liberty on the basis of religion

still problematic in contemporary U. S. society?

9. According to Mill, what might be the consequences of the over-

repression of individuality on persons of strong will?

--might prompt to rebellion, some will feel obligated to revolt, 77

--Also, society may be wrong in its assumptions themselves, as well as

in its claim of the right to impose on an individual, 78. Society tends to
impose no limits on its intrusion on the individual.
9. Next, he notes that the aberrations of existing moral feeling are too
major a subject to be disussed parenthetically, 79. To approach this
topic, he gives some examples of traits or acts condemned by some in
the name of morality. Why do you think he chooses these examples for
his audience?

--Mohammedans abhor the eating of pork, 79 [a difference which was

one of the causes of the Indian Mutiny of 1857, when the English
refused to permit the native troops to refrain from using pork to
grease their guns]

--Spaniards abhor married clergy, 80

Mill then switches to discussing the Puritan enforcement of public

morality in Britain. Many of his readers might have considered
Sabbatarian restrictions quite natural but condemned the prescription
of pork eating or the marriage of Anglican priests as sheer bigotry.

What approach does he take to the issue of outlawing polygamy? (86,

he agrees that it is retrograde but does not see how it can be
prohibited; here he ignores an argument to which he would usually
have been sympathetic, that it oppresses women)

10. What seems to have been Mill's attitude toward the goals and
practices of trades unionism?

--a wary distaste, 82; seen as a means of oppressing the superior

worker by preventing piece-work

--voluntary associations, yet capable of repressing those of their own

class (cmp. Dickens' portrayal of unions in Hard Times)

Here Mill seems to accept the view of the manufacturing classes, that
unions were a violation of [their] liberty to give wages of their choice.

11. How might Victorian trade union leaders have countered these
claims? What would Mill and Morris have thought of these views?
Had he lived today, what do you think Mill might have felt about

a. prohibiting smoking in public

b. restricting the sale of alcohol to minors

c. restrictions on driving while drunk

d. FDA bans on various forms of food additives, "sweeteners," etc.

e. the rights of mental patients (for example, to refuse hospitalization,

to refuse sterilization, to be able to bear children, to have access to
abortion)

f. the right of society to conscript in war, to define a "just war" against

the beliefs of the individual

g. the right to censor pornography, esp. as directed to children

h. the right to censor racist or "hate speech"

i. the right/obligation to censor television violence

j. the right/obligation to remove children from situations of child abuse

k. the right of society to penalize corporate pollution

l. the right of society to confine the mentally ill involuntarily and to

imprison "criminals" in general

m. the right to penalize prostitution

What are some other issues of government control vs. individual rights
which are debated today?

V. "Applications"

In this chapter Mill gives many specific examples of issues, then argues
whether or not regulation inhibits individual liberty. Each example
illustrates a different balance between social and individual rights so
that a different determining argument is needed.

Can/should one prohibit the following?

a. competitive examinations and professional competition--one

individual limits the success of another, but it is useful to society to
permit free competition for professional posts, 87-88

b. Can/should free trade be restrained or regulated? yes, to prevent

fraud by adulteration or other forms of cheating, 88; yet refraining
from interferences is generally good.

He doesn't deal with properly labelled destructive substances-how

might he have adjudicated regarding these?

He cites Maine and and Opium Laws as restrictions on the buyer. How
may Mill's employment at the East India Company have influenced
his views on "free trade"?

Background on the Opium War, 1839-42:

The Chinese government prohibited the importation of opium and

destroyed British opium at Canon, and in response the British
attacked several coastal Chinese cities. The Treaty of Nanking (182)
provided that the ports Canton, Amay, Foochow, Ningpo, and
Shanghai should be open to British trade and residence; in addition
Hong Kong was ceded to the British. In 1858 after another war China
was forced to agree to open 11 more ports, permit a foreign legation in
Peking, sanction Christian missionary activity, and legalize the
importation of opium. China's subsequent attempt to block the entry
of diplomats into Peking led to a renewal of the war in 1859. This time
the British and French occupied Peking and burnt the imperial
summer palace. The Peking conventions of 1860, by which China was
forced to make aditional concessions, concluded the hostilities.

c. restriction of sale of poisons--he believes this would involve a

limitation on the freedom of the buyer, 89.
--One shouldn't proscribe, but society can require their registration
and forms of witness (compare present-day gun registration), and can
require labelling.

--However, one can't restrict a freedom on the grounds that it could be

used to commit a crime, for all freedom of action could lead to
delinquency.

He ignores until later the tricky matter of advertisng and the

commercial puposes of seductive misrepresentation--people do harm
themselves but they are part of a society whose vested interests
encourage them to consume destructive substances. An individual
bombarded by suggestions will be influenced, perhaps against his or
her own good or even conscious will.

These same debates have been advanced recently in the United States
on the issues of gun control and banning of concealed weapons;
alcoholism; and smoking in public places.

Can one prohibit a person from crossing an unsafe bridge? 89

According to Mill it is one's duty to warn, and one could inhibit the
crossing if time were short (The use of warnings on cigarette packages
probably would have been his mode of dealing with this issue.)

According to Mill's principles, could one prevent a suicide? [I think

not.]

Again Mill takes up the issue of restricting drink--an important

nineteenth-century topic. Under what circumstances can drunkenness
be punished?

Can one penalize those who commit violence under the influence of
drink and forbid future drunkenness? 90

--Yes, but how could this be done?

Can one restrict the sale of liquor?

--sellers can be taxed only for revenue (that is, not punitively); one
should not restrict the number of drinking establishments but one can
restrict sellers for selling excessive amounts, 93. [Mill here replicates
the debates over the restriction of alcohol sales throughout university
towns in present-day United States.]

On page 93, does he seem to contradict his earlier claim that one
should not raise the price of noxious substances?

--Since the state needs revenue, it should be taken from sources where
least harm will be done; and food is more necessary than alcohol.

Mill also doesn't address the issue of the use of pubs as gathering
places for working men; the effect of restrictions on the entrance of
women and children into pubs, etc.

Can one penalize or prevent idleness, especially parental

irresponsibility? 91

--he believes that compulsory labor to support one's children could be

mandated--yet how could this be enforced? (cmp. present-day
garniture of wages for child-support)

Can there be restraints on exhibitions of indecency? 91

--He assumes resrictions are self-evidently necessary as these are

offences against others. He doesn't address the issue of standards of
decency; what to me may be offensive may to you be a valuable form
of self-assertion (say, nude beaches)

He's not sure about the issue of serving as a pimp or keeping a gaming
house, 92, that is, of penalizing the soliciting of others, but feels that
these activities should probably be restricted. This is essentially the
attitude taken by present laws. He also sees wrong in fineing the
procurer but not the fornicator, an attack on the double standard in
punishing prostitutes but not their clients.
What do you think he would have felt about restricting the selling of
cocaine or heroin? Of restricting their use? Of imprisoning violators?

Does Mill believe it is possible to place protective sanctions on the

labouring class? 94

--No, they are acknowledged to be beyond the state of cultural

childhood and therefore paternalism is not appropriate.

According to Mill, can a person sell him/herself into slavery? Why

not?

--95, cannot alienate one's freedom: "It is not freedom to be allowed to

alienate his freedom" (that is, this is a decision which cannot be
reversed. [This argument then should apply to suicide and other forms
of self-destruction.]

In what ways does Mill believe government can properly regulate

contracts between two persons, such as in marriage contracts or
family relationships?

--where the interests of third or other parties are affected, such as

children, it may not be appropriate to forbid separation legally, but
these obligations should be taken into account, especially in a moral
realm, 96. [Here he seems to imply that the parents of children should
seldom divorce--an issue which would have concerned him directly
since Harriet Taylor had three children--and he avoids issues of
divorce and separation in The Subjection of Women, doubtless for
political reasons. ]

Do you think Mill would have approved of modern divorce laws? (i. e.,
no-fault divorce, attention to children's rights during separation)

Should individuals be free and unrestrained in acting as guardians for

others in their families?
--believes that the patriarchal assumptions of the nineteenth-century
family/legal system are excessive; at present husbands are permitted to
wield "despotic power" over wives and fathers over children, 97.

Can the state demand that children be educated?

--97, yes, and in cases where the parent won't educate the child, the
state can provide education in certified schools and force the parent to
pay for it. [resembles our present system, whereby public schools are
supported by taxation; education is compulsory to age 16]

What do you think Mill might have felt about the rights of the Amish
and others to preserve their separate culture?

What is the best form of education, according to Mill?

--public or private schools schould be permitted, with public

examinations (the context for this was nineteenth-century religious
controversy). Mill believes that state education would force people to
be exactly alike, 98. What do you think?

--children should be tested on their knowledge of different points of

view, not their beliefs; this was not too practical a scheme, but in Mill's
view was better than consigning children to a completely sectarian
education. [Yet arguably both parent and child would be punished for
the child's incapacity if the child failed the examinations.] Still Mill
had earlier argued that we should hear points of view from those who
espouse them.

Would Mill have approved of the U. S. system of education, do you

think? In theory perhaps so, though he might have wanted a greater
variety of good quality private schools, and no school taxes for parents
who sent their children to private schools. In practice, Mill disliked
religious education and the Roman Catholic church, and he might
have accepted local school board autonomy as a fair equivalent, and
that a high level of secular = public education must be maintained by
taxes, something not possible in Mill's day.
What is Mill's attitude toward certification in general? Would he
approve of requiring medical certification of doctors? Examinations
for lawyers? (entire certification-degree systm was very new in the
mid-19th century--might have seemed to him to suggest a monopoly)

Can individuals properly be required to limit family size?

--yes, overpopulation an evil which affects all. One can prohibit

marriage to those who cannot support a family, 100 (the present-day
equivalent would be to require birth control).

Would Mill have approved of involuntary sterilization? (for example,

of welfare mohers) 100, it would seem so, but arguably "prohibition of
marriage" is a less intrusive act.

Here Mill is in the Malthusian tradition of utilitarianism. One

remembers that as a young man he had been a campaigner for the
dissemination of birth control information. His view, of course, would
be controversial in 21st century U. S.

Why are volunatry associations generally the best, in Mill's view? 102
What should be the function of the state in promoting the voluntary
effort of individuals?

--101-102, 105, government should provide a central repository of

information and advice for the aid of local and municipal institutions
and private associations (for example, information on how foreign
countries have dealt with similar issues)

--should encourage voluntary business and philanthropic

organizations (he doesn't mention trade unions)

--people can best tend to their own business

The state should provide the greatest dissemination of power

consistent with efficiency; the greatest centralization of information
and diffusion of information from the center, 105
What according to Mill are the evils of established government
bureaucracy?

--102, the reigning government will control everything

--103 standardization will result, and the rulebound nature of

bureaucracy will limit initiative--the government shouldn't
monopolize talent. [Mill himself worked for a private government-
sanctioned enterprise, the East India Company, which may have
influenced his point of view somewhat.]

--he believes that no reform is possible against the self-interest of

bureaucracy, 103, for each bureaucrat is a sevant of the system, 104
(cmp. his argument against rule by a majority)--an argument which
would seem to anticipate that of Foucault in Discipline and Punish.

--as a solution, he suggests that local officials should be permitted to

govern according to rules, 105-106 (what is this except bureaucracy?)

What is the emphasis of Mill's final warning?

--government should encourage individual activity.

Can you see any comparisons between Mill's views and Ruskin's
notions of the gothic?

--Both believe that the worth of the nation or state is that of the
individuals who compose it; man is not a machine, a cog, in a larger
effort; humans should learn not to obey but to think and to feel.

What final principles does he propose for recognizing individual and

governmental powers? 105-106

The ending to Mill's treatise is negative: government could banish

liberty in the pursuit of organization. Several of his chapters end with
a warning characteristic of nineteenth-century thought--the fear that
government by majority, a dictatorship of the people, may repress
minorities in culture or opinion, and that the human being may be lost
under the tyranny of public opinion, the strength of enforced
convention, or the machinery of government.

Was he justified in expressing these fears, do you think, given the

course of history since this work was published in 1859?

Do you feel Mill is consistent in making these distinctions? Is abstract,

legal or moral consistency possible in all of the issues he examines?

What are some of the final meanings and principles of Mill's treatise?

--defense of variety, intellectual courage, pluralism, private judgment,

voluntary and mutual association rather than legally mandated
contracts and efforts (in this regard Mill moves at times towad
mutualist or even libertarian anarchism)

What do you think of Mill as a persuasive writer?

--merits of his prose, balance, symmetry, control, precision, lucidity

and intensity

--One of best political debaters of his period, and most passionate

believer in the salutory intellectual and moral effects of continued
discussion.

Do you find limitations in his arguments or approach?

--His critics have charged that his system ignores the rights of society
or social obligations, which seems inaccurate. Probably those who
most trust the state--from both right and left--have tended to dislike
him. Opinions differ on whether he should be seen as primarily a
democrat--that is, an affirmer of democratic individualism against the
power of the state and enforced convention--or a libertarian skeptical
of the power of masses and groups.

In Mill's inability to see any positive aspects to mass culture he

resembles other intellectuals of his time. Socialists, by contrast, would
have emphasized the redeeming qualities in folk or popular art.
Were Mill alive today, what might he have had to say on the effects of
media conglomerates and advertising on behavior? On the
interpenetration of business and government? How might he have
argued the case for or against the liberty to harm or manipulate the
public?

Study Questions

In his other writings (for example, Considerations on

Representative Government), Mill writes in favor of
imperialism and despotic rule over "inferior" peoples. How
could Mill justify this stance, given his commitment to
individual liberty? (Look to his first chapter in On
Liberty, particularly to his discussion of children and barbaric
people).
It is important to realize that Mill does not believe freedom to
be an inherent right belonging to all men simply because
they are human. Mill specifically rejects trying to justify
liberty claims in this manner (by things like natural law or
divine will). Rather, Mill wants to show that liberty is
beneficial to the individual and to society; his book is an
attempt to show the utility of individuality. As a result, he
sets limits on how far liberty should extend. It would seem
natural that Mill's support of liberty extends to support self-
government, and in general it does. However, he believes
that children and "barbarians" lack the necessary tools to
enjoy liberty. For these people, it is the state's job to try to
provide them with the civilized ability to enjoy freedom. For
children, this results in measures like mandating public
education. For barbarians, Mill leaves open the possibility of
imperial rule, by which people are ruled with the hope that
they can one day rule themselves. Thus, Mill accepts
imperialism because he has a hierarchical conception of
societies, where only some are advanced enough to benefit
from the protection of individuality. Mill sees barbarians as
inferior peoples, in some sense childlike. As a result, the
most beneficial way of treating them is as children. Mill thus
would accept a kind of benevolent imperialism whose goal
was to civilize people to a state where they could benefit
from self-government. For those people who were capable
of self-government, however, liberty protections would still
hold.

What assumptions about human nature does Mill make in

expressing his theory? What would his theory lose if these
assumptions were wrong?

One of the most important assumptions about human nature

that Mill makes is about how people best learn about their
own opinions and activities. He argues that even if a person
is correct, she will only truly understand her views if she is
challenged by dissenting opinions and has to defend
herself. A similar claim holds in the case of nonconformist
activities. Mill's belief, however, is disputable; it is
questionable whether people will best understand their
opinions and values because of facing dissent. For
example, one could argue that a person might simply
become unnecessarily hurt and upset because of facing
challenging views. Thus, since Mill's view is based on the
social utility of individuality, if his belief is incorrect some of
the strength of the theory is lost. Mill must be able to show
that his theory brings about the most desirable outcome
from the point of view of overall well-being. If people do not
learn from dissenting opinions and nonconformity, then it is
much harder to make the case that liberty increases utility.
The argument would also lose a lot of rhetorical power if
Mill's view of human nature were wrong. Mill is probably
correct that most opinions and activities are not completely
right. However, most people tend to believe that their own
views are correct. Thus, if Mill is wrong that people are best
off being challenged when they are right, then his other
discussions would likely not have resonance with his
readers, because they would not necessarily see
themselves as being potentially wrong about deeply held
beliefs.
What room does Mill leave for social reformers to influence
society?

Mill's theory can be seen as both bolstering and inhibiting

social reformers. In some ways, his theory leaves a lot of
room for social reform. Mill believes that the only way for
society to progress is to allow the expression of individuality
in speech and action. Thus, he leaves room for untraditional
views of society to be expressed. For example, Mill would
not support inhibiting the free speech of reformers, or
forcing them to conform to social norms with which they
disagreed. In these ways, reformers would be given a lot of
freedom to pursue their vision of an ideal society. However,
social reformers would also likely be frustrated by Mill's
conception of liberty. While Mill believes that social
reformers should not be legally or socially restricted, he
would also argue that they should not legally or socially
restrict other people's activities. Thus, Mill would not support
movements like the 19th century temperance movement, or
movements against prostitution. He accepts that reformers
can try to convince people to change their view of society.
He even accepts the idea that there are better and worse
ways to structure society, and these reformers may be right
about how society should be altered. However, regardless of
the correctness of their views, Mill believes that reformers
should not try to force people to adapt those views. He
holds the value of individuality too highly. As a result, many
of the traditional methods used by reformers would not be
acceptable under Mill's system.

Who is Mill's audience? How does this affect his choice of

examples and the presentation of his argument?

Examine the role of "progress" in Mill's work. How does he

define progress and how does it inform his arguments?
Would his theory stand without the concept of progress?

What rights does Mill see children as having? How do they

figure into his description of social duties?

Discuss the ways in which Mill's essay is a historical

argument, and discuss the ways in which it presents an
abstract theory. Would the argument stand without one or
the other approaches?

Explain the significance of Mill's story about how Emperor

Marcus Aurelius persecuted Christians.
Explain why Mill believes that individuality is necessary for
social progress.

What avenues of disapproval does Mill leave for society to

express towards actions that they don't like? How does he
justify such disapproval?

How might Mill reply to a law banning the sale of handguns?

http://www.123helpme.com/search.asp?text=john+stuart+mill

http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/mill-a-bibliographical-essay-by-john-gray

http://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlLbty5.html