Mill on Liberty by John Stuart MillMy rating: 0 of 5 stars
Edited by Alburey Castell (bio). Originally published in 1859, this is a foundational philosophical essay by Mill that defends individual freedom and defines the limits of societal and governmental power over the individual. He leads with a bout a third of the novella-length content to the important of a free press and general diversity of opinion before getting to the dangers of a tyrannical majority, how government should stay out of dictating morality and religion, and even specifically cite unjust discrimination against Muslims. It is disheartening to think that two centuries later we seem to be caught regressing back to relitigate these topics.
From a version of the text on https://utilitarianism.net/, actually a positive opinion of a (broadly) two-party system:
In politics, again, it is almost a commonplace, that a party of order or stability, and a party of progress or reform, are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life; until the one or the other shall have so enlarged its mental grasp as to be a party equally of order and of progress, knowing and distinguishing what is fit to be preserved from what ought to be swept away. Each of these modes of thinking derives its utility from the deficiencies of the other; but it is in a great measure the opposition of the other that keeps each within the limits of reason and sanity.
I like his disparaging aside to Christians from Chapter 2:
...Christianity never would have expanded from an obscure sect of the despised Hebrews into the religion of the Roman empire. When their enemies said, “See how these Christians love one another” (a remark not likely to be made by anybody now), they assuredly had a much livelier feeling of the meaning of their creed than they have ever had since. And to this cause, probably, it is chiefly owing that Christianity now makes so little progress in extending its domain, and after eighteen centuries, is still nearly confined to Europeans and the descendants of Europeans. Even with the strictly religious, who are much in earnest about their doctrines, and attach a greater amount of meaning to many of them than people in general, it commonly happens that the part which is thus comparatively active in their minds is that which was made by Calvin, or Knox, or some such person much nearer in character to themselves. The sayings of Christ coexist passively in their minds, producing hardly any effect beyond what is caused by mere listening to words so amiable and bland. There are many reasons, doubtless, why doctrines which are the badge of a sect retain more of their vitality than those common to all recognised sects, and why more pains are taken by teachers to keep their meaning alive; but one reason certainly is, that the peculiar doctrines are more questioned, and have to be oftener defended against open gainsayers. Both teachers and learners go to sleep at their post, as soon as there is no enemy in the field.
It feels refreshing and modern progressive to hear him promote the freedom of opinion:
"Before quitting the subject of freedom of opinion, it is fit to take some notice of those who say, that the free expression of all opinions should be permitted, on condition that the manner be temperate, and do not pass the bounds of fair discussion. Much might be said on the impossibility of fixing where these supposed bounds are to be placed; for if the test be offence to those whose opinion is attacked, I think experience testifies that this offence is given whenever the attack is telling and powerful, and that every opponent who pushes them hard, and whom they find it difficult to answer, appears to them, if he shows any strong feeling on the subject, an intemperate opponent. But this, though an important consideration in a practical point of view, merges in a more fundamental"
On Defense of Free Press, Mill opens Chapter II: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion by discussing why the liberty of the press is vital as a check against corrupt or tyrannical government. In a footnote and accompanying text, Mill addresses the real-world Government Press Prosecutions of 1858, noting that this interference did not cause him to alter a single word of his text or weaken his stance that the era of penalizing political discussion had largely passed. Then he transitions into a discussion on the ethics of free opinion, touching upon the limits of censorship, political prosecution, and whether society has a right to suppress doctrines deemed immoral.
The time, it is to be hoped, is gone by, when any defense would be necessary of the "liberty of the press" as one of the securities against corrupt or tyrannical government. No argument, we may suppose, can now be needed, against permitting a legislature or an executive, not identified in interest with the people, to prescribe opinions to them, and determine what doctrines or what arguments they shall be allowed to hear. This aspect of the question, besides, has been so often and so triumphantly enforced by preceding writers, that it needs not be specially insisted on in this place. Though the law of England, on the subject of the press, is as servile to this day as it was in the time of the Tudors, there is little danger of its being actually put in force against political discussion...
In Chapter IV, Mill explores the limits of society's authority over the individual. He argues that society has no right to interfere with actions that only affect the person performing them. To prove how easily people cross this line out of pure disgust rather than reasoned harm, he presents the following example:
To cite a rather trivial example, nothing in the creed or practice of Christians does more to envenom the hatred of Mahomedans against them, than the fact of their eating pork. There are few acts which Christians and Europeans regard with more unaffected disgust, than Mussulmans regard this particular mode of satisfying hunger.
John Stuart Mill’s famous statement—“Human nature is not a machine to be built after a model, and set to do exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree, which requires to grow and develop itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing”—is here in Chapter III: Of Individuality. The phrase "built after a model" makes me think of AI of today, although I know Mill could not have had that in mind. The tree metaphor evokes to me "Crooked Tree" by Molly Tuttle & Golden Highway.
View all my reviews
