The Philosophy of Social/Civil Liberties of

John Stuart Mills

Philosophy 1010
Professor Alexander Izrailevsky
By Alexander Keith
E-portfolio link (http://alexkeithschool.weebly.com/coursework.html)






John Stuart Mill was a man of brilliance and integrity. His philosophy was years ahead
of its time, and as well as being ground-breaking his philosophical teachings were artistic and
poetic in their composition. I recently began reading his renounced work entitled On Liberty I
was immediately struck by his genius. But to say that Mill is merely a genius philosopher is to
say that Beethoven and Mozart were merely composers. The philosophy expressed by Mills is
more than just genius, it is art. Mills brilliance is accentuated greatly by his use of language. His
intricate and beautifully written similes and metaphors bring life to a subject that had it been
written by a less articulate hand would have been lost to the ravages of time. This is important
because the combination of Mills genius and his artistic composition in presenting that genius is
what made this philosophy withstand the test of time.
In Mills book On Liberty he begins his arguments almost immediately by discussing
the history of liberty, a history that is far from void of conflict. He explains that in the past the
struggle for liberty has been a struggle between classes, or more accurately a struggle between
certain classes or castes and the government. Liberty in this case meant Protection against the
tyranny of political rulers. In the past the leaders of any given country with few exceptions were
believed to be in a necessarily antagonistic position to the people they governed over. Or in other
there was no way for the people to experience freedom unless the will of the governing bodies
allowed it. The majority of these governing bodies were put into power either through conquest
or through inheritance. In my opinion the continual cycles of these systems of government can
only be broken in three ways; One, when the governing body decides to relinquish its hold of the
power inherent in rule, but, too often a leader who has obtained a modicum of power is reluctant
to let it go, or even to be content with that level of power to which he has already obtained. Two,
the cycle of governmental abuse could be broken if that government is forced, by a power greater
than itself. The third and final way that the cycle can be broken is through political rebellion.
This discussion of the history of liberty and the struggle for it, evidently leads to a
discussion on the history of democracy. After a time under the oppression of a governmental
entity the people eventually realize that the will of the government is habitually opposed to the
will of the people. When this outrageous idea is recognized by the people there is inevitably
rebellion, as in the case of the French revolution and also a call for democracy as in the case of
the rebellion against the English tyranny by the American founding fathers in the late 1700s.
This call for democracy was desirable because it demanded the responsibility of the government,
as well as providing the people with a means to have their liberties protected in a manner that if
ignored by said government would result in a legal form of political upheaval by means of
impeachment.
In his introductory to the book On Liberty Mills states that the purpose of civil or social
liberty is protect the governed people from its body of government, be it monarchical,
aristocratic or dictatorial.
Mills wrote.
To prevent the weaker members of the community from being preyed upon by
innumerable vultures, it was needful that there should be an animal of prey stronger than
the rest, commissioned to keep them down. But as the king of the vultures would be no
less bent upon preying on the flock than any of the minor harpies, it was indispensable to
be in a perpetual attitude of defense against his beak and claws. The aim, therefore, of
patriots was to set limits to the power which the ruler should be suffered to exercise over
the community; and this limitation was what they meant by liberty.

Mills then said that this pursuit of liberty was to be broken down into two steps.
Mills explained that this first step was to be achieved; by recognizing certain rights,
immunities and liberties and charging the ruler or rulers with their enforcement. If the rulers of a
particular community were to deny its members these liberties and rights or to impose laws that
contradicted those rights, then resistance or rebellion to those laws and infringements upon the
peoples liberties would be justifiable or even a moral responsibility.
His second step was; to establish a system of balances, constitutionally ingrained, which
would uphold the will of the community, either through some form of democracy or another or
through a republican system where a group of representatives would promote the will of the
people.
This discussion of democracy and its many benefits now must lead us down the path of
democratic downfalls. Mills casts phrases like self-government, and the power of the people over
themselves in an unfavorable light. Due to the fact that that these phrases are not used accurately
in that The people who exercise the power are not always the same people with those over
whom it is exercised. This so called self-government is not the government of each by himself,
but of each by all the rest. He goes on to say that the will of the people for all intents and
purposes means the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people.
Mills believes that the tyranny of the majority can be as dangerous as any other form of
tyranny, and perhaps more so than others, due to the fact that its very nature means that it is
backed by the largest and therefore most potent part of the population. If the population of a
community is comprised of many small groups with one prevailing over the others, that group is
the one with power. This means that the power of the government must be used to protect the
minority from the innate power of the majority.
Mills explains it thus.
Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead
of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a
social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not
usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating
much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection,
therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also
against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling

Mills believed that while the will of the majority was to be upheld the will of the minority
was to be respected and protected from the insertion of the will of the majority onto the minority.
Meaning that, no government should make a rule restricting the individuality of man to a place
within accepted norms. Individuality is to be respected as much as that of the rest of the
population.
This brings me to the belief Mills held on the matter of Individual freedom. He was of the
opinion that a man was entitled to his individual freedoms. That man should be allowed to do
something that society finds to be foolish, or odd, or even wrong as long as the only person
affected is himself. Mills believes that a man should not be forced to change his ways or his
beliefs because it would be good for him or because he would be happier, those are good reasons
for reasoning with him or even of entreating him, but should never be used as an excuse for
oppression of that mans beliefs.
Mills elaborates by laying down three principles intended to maintain our freedom. These
principles are to be used as a guideline for a healthy, productive society. The three principles are
as follows.
One,
The, protect us from evil principle. Society must make no law against the freedom of
expression unless that law is calculated to protect others from evil. Mills says that In the part
which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his
own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. However, in any case where a mans beliefs or
actions infringe upon the beliefs or actions of another, it must be conceded that, that man has
crossed the line from liberty to tyranny and must be stopped either by entreaty or if necessary by
force.
Two,
The law of the land Mills recognized the importance of enforcing as well as adhering to
those laws laid down by the government if they be just. This means that inasmuch as a man
follows the first principle of the protection from evil. As well as recognizing those just laws set
down by the government to ensure both the safety and wellbeing of a society and the individuals
that make up that society.
Three,
Mills final Principle dealing with the infringement of liberty was that of the, protection of
children. He believed that children must be forced by their parent or guardian to do the things
that will eventually make them successful adults. Children are to be taught all things that it is
possible to teach them while they are beholden to you. They should be schooled in manners,
moral ideals as well as raised to the highest academic standards possible. When children reach
the age accepted by society as adulthood then they should be made free.
While Mills believes that there are only three cases where a person should be compelled
to prevent actions he also believes that compulsion is very acceptable to promote it. Actions that
can be compelled by society are those that are beneficial to others, such as, to answer a call to
provide for the common defense, to bear testimony in a legal court, or to perform acts of
individual beneficence such as saving anothers life, or stepping in to protect the defenseless
against any evil that may be done against them.
While this paper must shortly come to an end I would be remiss if I neglected to mention
what is quite possibly John Stuart Mills most famous quote, one that is based on the pursuit of
freedom through war.
Mills was not a violent man but he was most definitely a practical one. He could see that
even though was is terrifying it is far from the worst thing that can happen to a man.
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of
moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The
person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important
than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free
unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

These words were the first Id ever heard from this great philosopher and I memorized
them as soon as I could. They stayed with me through four years in the United States Marine
Corps and I have yet to find a lesson that is as powerful or true as this.
John Stuart Mill was more than just a philosopher and more than just an artist or a poet or
a genius. He was a combination of each of these. He was a man of exceptional moral character
who stood up for the freedoms of minorities as well as perceived minorities. Mills strove to use
his philosophy to protect those who could not protect themselves by shedding light on those
areas of social discord where liberties were being encroached upon even against the widely held
beliefs of the time. By doing this he showed courage and poise in the face of a society that was
very likely to disagree with a philosophy of total equality. His is a philosophy I will strive to
emulate throughout my life.















Bibliography

Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. Oxford U.P, 1924. Print.