Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    On Liberty
    On Liberty
    On Liberty
    Ebook162 pages5 hours

    On Liberty

    By John Stuart Mill

    4/5

    ()

    Switch to audiobook
    Read preview

    About this ebook

    On Liberty is a philosophical work by 19th century English philosopher John Stuart Mill, first published in 1859. To the Victorian readers of the time it was a radical work, advocating moral and economic freedom of individuals from the state.

    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherBooklassic
    Release dateJun 22, 2015
    ISBN9789635246045

    Read more from John Stuart Mill

    Related to On Liberty

    Related ebooks

    Philosophy For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • Article

      Fighting On

      Jul 1, 2020

      Fighting On
      8 min read

    • Article

      A Poisoned World

      Mar 23, 2021

      A Poisoned World
      3 min read

    • Article

      ‘This Frightful Catastrophe’

      Feb 23, 2018

      ‘This Frightful Catastrophe’
      9 min read

    • Article

      How Do We Write About Evil?

      Jan 4, 2019

      How Do We Write About Evil?
      9 min read

    • Article

      “Where Poetry Comes From”

      Sep 1, 2020

      This is what power really is: the privilege of ignoring anything you might find distasteful. —Oksana Zabuzhko “Language, any language,” observed the young poet Oksana Zabuzhko, “is the capital love of my life” because “nothing else has the power to s

      11 min read

    • Article

      A Fragile Peace

      Jun 1, 2020

      A Fragile Peace
      12 min read

    • Article

      Lady Sings the Blues

      Apr 23, 2015

      Lady Sings the Blues
      5 min read

    • Article

      Nothingism

      Mar 1, 2019

      Nothingism
      11 min read

    • Article

      The Devil’s Dictionary

      Jul 6, 2021

      Select entries from Ambrose Bierce’s lexicon of cynicism, bitterness, and humor, produced over a 30-year period beginning in 1881. APOLOGIZE, v.i. To lay the foundation for a future offence. BARD, n. A person who makes rhymes. The word is one of the

      4 min read

    • Article

      Introduction: Populism, Self-Government, and Liberty

      Aug 4, 2021

      Populist and neoliberal are epithets: anyone who uses one of these terms as a description doesn’t belong to the group being described. The more extreme stand-ins— socialist for the Left and fascist for the Right—are hyperbolic and hackneyed, so popul

      15 min read

    • Article

      The Enfranchisement Of Women

      Jul 30, 2018

      The Enfranchisement Of Women
      6 min read

    • Article

      Power To The People

      Jan 17, 2022

      Power To The People
      10 min read

    • Article

      Republics Large and Small

      Aug 4, 2021

      In the beginning, the American Revolution was about liberty. To the Americans, as to their ideological mentors, the radical English Whigs, liberty was the antithesis and eternal antagonist of power. Power meant simply control over the lives of one’s

      19 min read

    • Article

      A Crisis Of Truths

      Jan 27, 2022

      A Crisis Of Truths
      9 min read

    • Article

      Power

      Jul 30, 2018

      How mild, by comparison with the despatches in the daily newspapers, will seem this chronicle of women’s militant struggle against political and social injustice in one small corner of Europe. Yet let it stand as it was written, with peace – so-calle

      3 min read

    • Article

      Human Rights, Not As A Weapon, But For The Common Good

      May 11, 2023

      Rather than contributing to the common good, today’s human rights discourse has become part of the problem. Firstly, it is seriously discredited by its hypocritical, inconsistent and clearly political application, which have made it a very debased cu

      3 min read

    • Article

      A Lesson of Virtue

      Jul 28, 2022

      Harvard Law School professor Adrian Vermeule recently launched his new book Common Good Constitutionalism. In last week’s edition of Beijing Review, Vermeule and John Pang, Malaysian senior fellow at Bard College in New York, described the shared cla

      4 min read

    • Article

      The New American Empire

      Jan 24, 2019

      The New American Empire
      5 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for On Liberty

    4/5

    467 ratings13 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

    • 4/5
      Eccentricity has always abounded when and where strength of character has abounded; and the amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigor, and moral courage which it contained.

      It would be pretentious to suggest I dedicated my reading to Ahmed Merabet, yet it would be untrue to exclaim otherwise. We've drowned in debate about liberty this last week. Somehow I regard that as most encouraging. I found Mill’s treatise riveting and incisive along a number of axes which inform our means of government and private life. Mill was a shrewd historian and a brilliant writer. I gasped audibly at his conclusions and deft references. Too often Utilitarianism is wedged into confined spaces for politically conservative purposes. I have no problem with that. I suspect J.S. Mill wouldn't either. His moral remains, we should all disagree, question custom and exercise our faculties at every turn.
    • 5/5
      Nice long Victorian sentences. Five stars for the scorn and contempt.
    • 4/5
      A classic exposition of the idea that man should generally be free of interference from the government except as needed to protect the liberty of others. It's written from a decidedly utilitarian perspective, making the conclusions both stronger and weaker - stronger because Mill shows that liberty has significant practical advantages, but weaker because it places liberty as a good less valuable than other goods, and makes it difficult to defend liberty against the argument that some infringement on liberty will leave people "better off".
    • 5/5
      A core writing about political philosophy, this is the one that, more than any other, activated my thinking about politics and freedom. Mill describes the object of his essay to be: "That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. 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."
    • 4/5
      Apart from the small print and huge paragraphs, this is a supremely readable and insightful tome of political philosophy. I can agree in general with his ideas, but in response to all of those free market neo-liberals worshipping at his feet I would point to page 80:

      Whoever succeeds in an overcrowded profession, or in a competitive examination; whoever is preferred to another in any contest for an object which both desire, reaps benefit rom the loss of others, from their wasted exertion and their disappointment. But it is, by common admission, better for the general interest of mankind, that persons should pursue their objects undeterred by this sort of consequences. In other words, society admits no right, either legal or moral, in the disappointed competitors, to immunity from this kind of suffering; and feels called on to interfere, only when means of success have been employed which it is contrary to the general interest to permit -- namely, fraud or treachery, and force.

      That seems to succinctly condemn any of the hanky panky going on up there Wall Street-ward, and even allow for society (i.e. state) intervention to prevent it. Admittedly, it leaves the definition of "treachery" and "force" rather fuzzy.

      I found deeply engaging his elegant conversation about freedom of opinion and expression in chapters 2 and 3. Among many memorable points, he proclaims the importance of keeping our beliefs alive and honed through honest and vigorous debate with opposing opinions. Also very interesting were his ideas about the school system in chapter 5. I´d be interested to hear what he had to say about universal health care.
    • 5/5
      This is a lucid, powerful, and extremely influential defense of individual liberty. It's short, too, less than 150 paperback pages, very accessible and worth knowing whatever your beliefs. After all, as Mill himself says, if something is true, we should learn it--if something is false, it can still illuminate truth through its errors. Although I think there are some fatal defects, I also find much that is persuasive and wise. I like his arguments for the utility of freedom of speech and opinion and the dangers of conformity. Mill states his object from the start: The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. 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.For me so far, so good. I see two major problems with his arguments though, defects that are undermine the above. First, there is his insistence in grounding his argument on Utilitarianism:It is proper to state that I forego any advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right, as a thing independent of utility. I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being.And then Mill makes a curious move. He states his arguments don't apply to children that those "who are still in a state to require being taken care of by others, must be protected against their own actions as well as against external injury." Fair enough. But then he goes on to say that:Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion.That in my opinion is what always lets the tyrant in the door. It's for their own good! Wasn't after all that the argument for everything from black chattel slavery to colonialism? If you don't ground individual liberty as a right, then the argument can always be made that a individual person or even the majority of the people don't know their own good. Who is to say when humankind has reached the age of majority? And indeed you can see that in Mill's own evolution. In this essay he argues for the free market--but eventually would become a socialist. So...
    • 5/5
      How did I get a college degree without reading this book? How did I even get a high school diploma? John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty”, written just before the US Civil War, is an amazing look at the concept of liberty, what we in the modern United States would call freedom. Although the book is a century and a half old the language is only slightly dusty and the issues are depressingly current. What is the proper role of government, should women have rights equal to men, should majority opinion create rules for the minority?Mills’ believed that, as long an individual’s actions do not cause harm someone else, those individuals, those adult individuals, should be allowed to do whatever they please. His argument on the Temperance Movement of his era is directly applicable to the question of recreational drugs today, as are his comments on freedom of religion.This book, along with Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” are the most important works I have read on the subject of freedom and the proper role of government, both are old enough that I doubt anyone could accuse the authors of these books of “partisan politics” unless, that is, they consider freedom and liberty of interest only the “other side”.
    • 5/5
      The seminal work on utilitarianism by it's intellectual founder. JSM's take on macro and micro economics (as we know them now) is critical to understanding our freedoms as tied to a economized society.A must read for all libertarians and socialists.
    • 4/5
      After finishing this book, I'm of the opinion it should be required reading in high school. It is not that I agree with Mill on all points—I certainly don't—it's that he's asking the right questions. Essentially, he starts a discussion on what it means to be a citizen of a community and what it means to be a just government. He highlights the often-overlooked distinction between the premise that, in a democracy, power should be in the hands of the majority and the very different premise that the majority, having that power, should be free to do as it chooses.Of course, he reaches certain conclusions: "…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." These conclusions can be attacked from both directions. From a more conservative position, one can question what appears to be his assumption that a society is nothing more than a collection of individuals, that no concept of shared values has a place in it. One might also question his delineations of "harm to others"…they seem somewhat shallow and limited to direct causality. From a more liberal position, one might take issue with his statements that backward societies should not enjoy full privileges because they are not "capable". One might question whether he is really trying to protect individuality or whether he is trying to protect the intellectual elite from the "despotism of collective mediocrity."It does not matter. These questions are certainly as relevant today as they were just before the Civil War, and the attempt to answer them seems important to me.
    • 5/5
      A must read for anybody interested in freedom of expression
    • 5/5
      Wouldn't it be great if life were like these philosopher chappies thought? You know, one great idea; we all conform to it, and universal happiness is guaranteed! Mill, of course came up with the idea that individual liberty was that one concept. The only rider which he was willing to put upon liberty, was that one's liberty must not harm another.The best thing about this Pelican edition, is the forward which, gives the uninitiated, such as myself, a background to the writing thereof. The partial biography tells us that John Stuart never attended school, but was hothoused by his father, James, and Jeremy Bentham, to such an extent that JS was reading ancient Greek manuscripts at the age of three! Needless to say, such pressure caused the poor might to suffer a nervous breakdown and he eventually rebelled to the extent of a most curious affair at age 23 with a married woman, Harriet Taylor. When Mr Taylor turned up his heels (some twenty years later), they, eventually, wed and, whilst working together on several tracts, one of which was 'On Liberty', published nothing until such time as Mrs. Mill went to meet her first husband once more.The biography certainly helps one to understand from whence came this seemingly simple and humanitarian philosophy and also gives an inkling as to why it, like all unidimensional solutions to the human state, is bound to disappoint its followers. This little book is a very readable insight into John Stuart's (and Harriet's) thinking. Fascinating, but I shall not become a devotee.
    • 5/5
      Revisiting On Liberty was an interesting exercise. It is little wonder that it was, and, according to the introduction, is ever more so, a gospel for living as an individual. What was most challenging was to find that so much of my education has led me to read Mill as if it were gospel, agreeing at every turn with almost everything. Its simplicity may be a reason for this, but it is also evident that a liberal education cannot be anything less than based on Mill's philosophy. Ideas affecting liberty, such as the after-hours lock-out laws in Sydney, are covered by Mill. Yet contemporary ideas of libertarianism seem to deny Mill's authority on the matter. But finding my own philosophy so closely aligned with Mill's is something worthy of further challenge and reflection. That this "little book" has since become a program for governments throughout the Anglo world appears to have reached its peak, with issues such as national security throwing into conflict the ideas of Hobbes and Mill on the nature of the "good society". Yet this gospel of the liberal tradition, in my mind, at least, wins again and again when read from the lofty heights of experience which I could neither conjure nor comprehend all those years ago. Mill really is the "godfather" of the liberal tradition and, like any gospel, rewards one with each subsequent reading.
    • 3/5
      I liked this one, but it was not as profound or as memorable as my friends told me it was, so I was a bit disappointed. Reading this book was not particularly entertaining, but gave me some background for reading other, more modern arguments related to liberty and society.

    Book preview

    On Liberty - John Stuart Mill

    On Liberty

    John Stuart Mill

    Booklassic

    2015

    ISBN 978-963-524-604-5

    The grand, leading principle, towards which every argument unfolded in these pages directly converges, is the absolute and essential importance of human development in its richest diversity.

    Wilhelm von Humboldt,

    Sphere and Duties of Government

    To the beloved and deplored memory of her who was the inspirer, and in part the author, of all that is best in my writings—the friend and wife whose exalted sense of truth and right was my strongest incitement, and whose approbation was my chief reward—I dedicate this volume. Like all that I have written for many years, it belongs as much to her as to me; but the work as it stands has had, in a very insufficient degree, the inestimable advantage of her revision; some of the most important portions having been reserved for a more careful re-examination, which they are now never destined to receive. Were I but capable of interpreting to the world one half the great thoughts and noble feelings which are buried in her grave, I should be the medium of a greater benefit to it, than is ever likely to arise from anything that I can write, unprompted and unassisted by her all but unrivalled wisdom.

    Chapter 1

    Introductory

    THE subject of this Essay is not the so-called Liberty of the Will, so unfortunately opposed to the misnamed doctrine of Philosophical Necessity; but Civil, or Social Liberty: the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual. A question seldom stated, and hardly ever discussed, in general terms, but which profoundly influences the practical controversies of the age by its latent presence, and is likely soon to make itself recognized as the vital question of the future. It is so far from being new, that, in a certain sense, it has divided mankind, almost from the remotest ages, but in the stage of progress into which the more civilized portions of the species have now entered, it presents itself under new conditions, and requires a different and more fundamental treatment.

    The struggle between Liberty and Authority is the most conspicuous feature in the portions of history with which we are earliest familiar, particularly in that of Greece, Rome, and England. But in old times this contest was between subjects, or some classes of subjects, and the government. By liberty, was meant protection against the tyranny of the political rulers. The rulers were conceived (except in some of the popular governments of Greece) as in a necessarily antagonistic position to the people whom they ruled. They consisted of a governing One, or a governing tribe or caste, who derived their authority from inheritance or conquest; who, at all events, did not hold it at the pleasure of the governed, and whose supremacy men did not venture, perhaps did not desire, to contest, whatever precautions might be taken against its oppressive exercise. Their power was regarded as necessary, but also as highly dangerous; as a weapon which they would attempt to use against their subjects, no less than against external enemies. 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 upon the flock than any of the minor harpies, it was indispensable to be in a perpetual attitude of defence 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. It was attempted in two ways. First, by obtaining a recognition of certain immunities, called political liberties or rights, which it was to be regarded as a breach of duty in the ruler to infringe, and which, if he did infringe, specific resistance, or general rebellion, was held to be justifiable. A second, and generally a later expedient, was the establishment of constitutional checks; by which the consent of the community, or of a body of some sort supposed to represent its interests, was made a necessary condition to some of the more important acts of the governing power. To the first of these modes of limitation, the ruling power, in most European countries, was compelled, more or less, to submit. It was not so with the second; and to attain this, or when already in some degree possessed, to attain it more completely, became everywhere the principal object of the lovers of liberty. And so long as mankind were content to combat one enemy by another, and to be ruled by a master, on condition of being guaranteed more or less efficaciously against his tyranny, they did not carry their aspirations beyond this point.

    A time, however, came in the progress of human affairs, when men ceased to think it a necessity of nature that their governors should be an independent power, opposed in interest to themselves. It appeared to them much better that the various magistrates of the State should be their tenants or delegates, revocable at their pleasure. In that way alone, it seemed, could they have complete security that the powers of government would never be abused to their disadvantage. By degrees, this new demand for elective and temporary rulers became the prominent object of the exertions of the popular party, wherever any such party existed; and superseded, to a considerable extent, the previous efforts to limit the power of rulers. As the struggle proceeded for making the ruling power emanate from the periodical choice of the ruled, some persons began to think that too much importance had been attached to the limitation of the power itself. That (it might seem) was a resource against rulers whose interests were habitually opposed to those of the people. What was now wanted was, that the rulers should be identified with the people; that their interest and will should be the interest and will of the nation. The nation did not need to be protected against its own will. There was no fear of its tyrannizing over itself. Let the rulers be effectually responsible to it, promptly removable by it, and it could afford to trust them with power of which it could itself dictate the use to be made. Their power was but the nation's own power, concentrated, and in a form convenient for exercise. This mode of thought, or rather perhaps of feeling, was common among the last generation of European liberalism, in the Continental section of which, it still apparently predominates. Those who admit any limit to what a government may do, except in the case of such governments as they think ought not to exist, stand out as brilliant exceptions among the political thinkers of the Continent. A similar tone of sentiment might by this time have been prevalent in our own country, if the circumstances which for a time encouraged it had continued unaltered.

    But, in political and philosophical theories, as well as in persons, success discloses faults and infirmities which failure might have concealed from observation. The notion, that the people have no need to limit their power over themselves, might seem axiomatic, when popular government was a thing only dreamed about, or read of as having existed at some distant period of the past. Neither was that notion necessarily disturbed by such temporary aberrations as those of the French Revolution, the worst of which were the work of an usurping few, and which, in any case, belonged, not to the permanent working of popular institutions, but to a sudden and convulsive outbreak against monarchical and aristocratic despotism. In time, however, a democratic republic came to occupy a large portion of the earth's surface, and made itself felt as one of the most powerful members of the community of nations; and elective and responsible government became subject to the observations and criticisms which wait upon a great existing fact. It was now perceived that such phrases as self-government, and the power of the people over themselves, do not express the true state of the case. The people who exercise the power, are not always the same people with those over whom it is exercised, and the self-government spoken of, is not the government of each by himself, but of each by all the rest. The will of the people, moreover, practically means, the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people; the majority, or those who succeed in making themselves accepted as the majority; the people, consequently, may desire to oppress a part of their number; and precautions are as much needed against this, as against any other abuse of power. The limitation, therefore, of the power of government over individuals, loses none of its importance when the holders of power are regularly accountable to the community, that is, to the strongest party therein. This view of things, recommending itself equally to the intelligence of thinkers and to the inclination of those important classes in European society to whose real or supposed interests democracy is adverse, has had no difficulty in establishing itself; and in political speculations the tyranny of the majority is now generally included among the evils against which society requires to be on its guard.

    Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant —society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it—its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. 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 practises 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; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.

    But though this proposition is not likely to be contested in general terms, the practical question, where to place the limit—how to make the fitting adjustment between individual independence and social control—is a subject on which nearly everything remains to be done. All that makes existence valuable to any one, depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of other people. Some rules of conduct, therefore, must be imposed, by law in the first place, and by opinion on many things which are not fit subjects for the operation of law. What these rules should be, is the principal question in human affairs; but if we except a few of the most obvious cases, it is one of those which least progress has been made in resolving. No two ages, and scarcely any two countries, have decided it alike; and the decision of one age or country is a wonder to another. Yet the people of any given age and country no more suspect any difficulty in it, than if it were a subject on which mankind had always been agreed. The rules which obtain among themselves appear to them self-evident and selfjustifying. This all but universal illusion is one of the examples of the magical influence of custom, which is not only, as the proverb says a second nature, but is continually mistaken for the first. The effect of custom, in preventing any misgiving respecting the rules of conduct which mankind impose on one another, is all the more complete because the subJect is one on which it is not generally considered necessary that reasons should be given, either by one person to others, or by each to himself. People are accustomed to believe and have been encouraged in the belief by some who aspire to the character of philosophers, that their feelings, on subjects of this nature, are better than reasons, and render reasons unnecessary. The practical principle which guides them to their opinions on the regulation of human conduct, is the feeling in each person's mind that everybody should be required to act as he, and those with whom he sympathizes, would like them to act. No one, indeed, acknowledges to himself that his standard of judgment is his own liking; but an opinion on a point of conduct, not supported by reasons, can only count as one person's preference; and if the reasons, when given, are a mere appeal to a similar preference felt by other people, it is still only many people's liking instead of one. To an ordinary man, however, his own preference, thus supported, is not only a perfectly satisfactory reason, but the only one he generally has for any of his notions of morality, taste, or propriety, which are not expressly written in his religious creed; and his chief guide in the interpretation even of that. Men's opinions, accordingly, on what is laudable or blamable, are affected by all the multifarious causes which influence their wishes in regard to the conduct of others, and which are as numerous as those which determine their wishes on any other subject. Sometimes their reason—at other times their prejudices or superstitions: often their social affections, not seldom their antisocial ones, their envy

    Enjoying the preview?
    Page 1 of 1