On Liberty and Other Essays (Oxford World's Classics)

One of the interesting ideas behind 'On Liberty' is that this may in fact be more the inspiration of Harriet Taylor (later Mrs. J.S. Mill) than of Mill himself; Taylor wrote an essay on Toleration, most likely in 1832, but it remained unpublished until after her death. F.A. Hayek (free-market economist and philosopher) noticed this connection. Whether this was the direct inspiration or not, the principles are similar, and the Mills were rather united in their views about liberty.

'On Liberty' is more of an extended essay than a book - it isn't very long. It relates as a political piece to his general Utilitarianism and political reform ideology. A laissez faire capitalist in political economy, his writing has been described as 'improved Adam Smith' and 'popularised Ricardo'. Perhaps it is in part the brevity of 'On Liberty' that gives it an enduring quality.

There are five primary sections to the text. The introduction sets the stage philosophically and historically. He equates the histories of classical civilisations (Greece and Rome) with his contemporary England, stating that the struggle between liberty and authority is ever present and a primary feature of society. He does not hold with unbridled or unfettered democracy, either (contrary to some popular readings of his text) - he warns that the tyranny of the majority can be just as dangerous and damaging toward a society as any individual or oligarchic despotism. Mill looks for a liberty that permits individualism; thus, while democracy is an important feature for Mill, there must be a system of checks and balances that ensures individual liberties over and against this kind of system. All of these elements receive further development in subsequent sections.

The second section of the text is 'Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion'. Freedom of speech and expression is an important aspect here. Mill presents a somewhat radical proposition that even should the government and the people be in complete agreement with regard to coercive action, it would still be an illegitimate power. This is an important consideration in today's world, as governments and people contemplate the curtailment of civil liberties in favour of increased security needs. The possibility of fallibility, according to Mill, makes the power illegitimate, and (again according to Mill) it doesn't matter if it affects many or only a few, people today or posterity. It is still wrong. Mill develops this argument largely by using the history of religious ideas and religious institutions, in addition to the political (since the two were so often inter-related).

The third section is perhaps the best known and most quoted, 'Of Individuality, as One of the Elements of Well-Being'. It is perhaps a natural consequence of Enlightenment thinking that individuality over communal and corporate identity would dominate. Our world today goes back and forth between individual and communal identities (nationality, regionality, employment, church affiliation, school affiliation, sports teams, etc.). Mill's ideas of individual are very modern, quite at home with the ideas of modern political and civil individuality, with all of the responsibilities.

Mill states, 'No one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions.' He recognises the increased limitations on individual liberty given that we do live in communal settings, but this does not hinder the idea of individuality and individual liberty, particularly as it pertains to thoughts and speech. Mill explores various ideas of personal identity and action (medieval, Calvinist, etc.) to come up with an idea of individuality that is rather modern; of course, this is political personhood that pre-dates the advent of psychology/psychoanalytic theory that will give rise to a lot more confusion for the role of identity and personhood in society.

The fourth primary section looks theoretically at the individual in community, 'Of the Limits to the Authority of Society Over the Individual'; the final section looks at specific applications. Mill discounts the idea of social contract while maintain that there is a mutual responsibility between individuals and community. Mill looks at the Temperance movements and laws as an example of bad laws (not only from the aspect of curtailment of liberty, but also for impractical aspects of enforcement); in similar examples, Mill looks at the role of society in regulating the life of the individual, calling on good government to always err on the side of the individual.

Mill puts it very directly -- Individuals are accountable only to themselves, unless their actions concern the interests of society at large. Few in the Western world would argue with this today; however, we still live in a world where 'thought police' are feared, and 'political correctness' is debated as appropriate or not with regard to individual liberties.

Mill wrote extensively beyond this text, in areas of philosophy (logic, religion, ethics). The particular text here includes other essays of interest: 'Utilitarianism', 'Considerations on Representative Government', and 'The Subjection of Women', and also has a useful bibliography and index. The essay on Utilitarianism is one of the more contentious works of Mill; the later two contain ideas well ahead of their time, and many parts can be seen at work in modern democracies.

This should probably be required reading in civics classes, if not in the pre-university years for students, then certainly in the early university years.


More relevant today than in 1859 :(   November 24, 2004
Belén (Buenos Aires, Argentina)
7 out of 7 found this review helpful

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was interested in the nature of Civil Liberty, and the limits to the power that a Government can legitimately exercise upon its citizens. He believed that some worrying tendencies could be observed in the England society of his time, and tried to warn others about them.
The author basically explains his ideas regarding the preservation of individual liberties, not only due to the fact that they are rights owed to everyone, but also because they benefit society as a whole.

For example, when he says that liberty of thought and of discussion must be preserved, he tells us that "Wrong opinions and practices gradually yield to fact and argument: but fact and arguments, to produce any effect on the mind, must be brought before it". How can mistaken beliefs or actions be proven wrong, if dissent is forbidden?. The loss for society is clear: "If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error".

In order to preserve the liberties included in the concept of Civil Liberty, the author points out that there must be limits to the action of the Government. He says 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". Any other reason is simply not good enough. Thus, Stuart Mill highlights the rights of the individual, but also the limit to those rights: the well-being of others.

"On Liberty" is not too long, and I think you are highly likely to enjoy it, if you can get past the first few pages. The problem is that even though the ideas in this book are quite modern, the language is somehow dated. But then, we must remember that "On Liberty" was written a long time ago...

Notwithstanding that, do your best to read the first pages, and you will realize that after a while it will be much easier. This book is well-worth the effort you need to make at the beginning, because it is even more relevant today than when it was first published, in 1859.

Are individual rights important?. Why?. Do they have a limit?. You will found the answer for these questions, and much more, in "On Liberty". What else can I say?. I believe this is a book that will help you to reflect on many important issues... I certainly can't think of a better reason to read it. All in all, recommended


On Liberty   May 29, 2004
1 out of 7 found this review helpful

Mill shines on Liberty, so coherent, so well voiced, so relevant still today.


An Undergraduate Reviewer speaks...   February 24, 2004
5 out of 6 found this review helpful

Without wishing to touch too much on the significance of Mill's essays, this edition comes highly recommended for students - it's cheap, it includes the 4 essays you're likely to need - 'On Liberty' may well be the most well known of the essays, but 'Utilitarianism' provides the necessary backdrop for understanding Mill's thought. Nevertheless, 'Considerations of Representative Government' and 'Subjection of Women' are extremely valuable to have and in a single volume at such a low price, it can only be highly recommended. Admittedly, the introduction and notes aren't the best I've seen, but to have the 4 essays in one volume is still a definite plus for the undergraduate or for that matter, many other readers...


Live and Let Live   April 1, 2002
Ben Saunders (Oxford)
12 out of 12 found this review helpful

The author of On Liberty, John Stuart Mill (known as J. S. Mill to avoid confusion with his father James), was a 19th century liberal, most famous for his Utilitarianism, espousing the view that the morally right action was that producing the most happiness. On Liberty, a political tract, was written at much the same time, and published in 1859.

Thankfully 19th century English isn't a very different language, so there's no need to worry about the translation or editing. But why read it at all? Well, Mill's thought may not have been entirely original, but it was elegantly put. His writing general aimed to make his ideas accessible to the common man, and On Liberty shares his typical ease of reading. What's more, the ideas he presents were (and still are) immensely influential.

The basis of Mill's theory could be summed up 'live and let live'. In his own words, "Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest" (p17, my edition). Such an idea has continued to affect political decisions, for example reference to it was made when homosexuality was legalised in this country. Mill's aim was to defend freedoms of thought, action and association. Even though this sometimes conflicted with a society unwilling to question, for example, the Bible or supposed inferiority of women, Mill's argument was that the truth is best demonstrated as such by defeating opposing views in rational debate, not by repressing them.

The extent to which Mill was ahead of his time can be over-emphasised. Admittedly he argued for the equality of women and universal suffrage, but it is worth noting he envisaged a scheme in which people should have differential voting power according to, for example, education. Despite this, he was still a far-sighted intellectual of his time, and someone who helped lay the foundations of modern social and political thought.

Mill's idealism was not untempered, however. The picture he paints is not of some vain utopia; rather he recognises "All that makes existence valuable to anyone, depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of other people. Some rules of conduct, therefore, must be imposed" (p9). With this in mind, he formulates the central 'harm principle'.

The only basis, he argued, for restricting anyone's liberty (assuming them to be competent adults) was to prevent harm to others. Mill was prepared to allow what may be seen as 'self harm' both because he thought individual autonomy important, and because he argued no other agent could determine what was in someone else's interests. The problem with the harm principle, however, is its vagueness, and much criticism focused on what was included in the notion of 'harm to others'.

It seems 'harm' refers to an individual's fundamental interests. In the normal course of affairs, for example, Mill would have allowed me the right to commit suicide, for though it might upset my family and friends, I do not have an overriding obligation to them to stay alive. When this becomes a matter of their interests, for example if I am the father of young children, and effectively contractually bound to provide for them, then I am not at liberty to kill myself, and society would be justified in stopping me.

As I've presented it here, it seems a very simple idea. On the surface, it is; but obviously you can appreciate controversy about what exactly counts as 'other-harm' continues, and there is a wealth of literature on the subject. If you're studying On Liberty then texts I recommend (which I used at first year degree level) include:

John Gray, Mill on Liberty: A Defence
and the collection of essays in:
Alan Ryan, Mill

Also of interest may be Chapter 8 of Roger Crisp's Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Mill on Utilitarianism; which deals with the claim utilitarianism conflicts with liberty, since the 'harm principle' may not guarantee the greatest happiness and hence paternalism could be justified.