John Stuart Mill: Liberal Political Philosopher of the Industrial Revolution - Essay Sample

Introduction

John Stuart Mill was a British philosopher and liberal in political matters during times when England was undergoing a momentous political transformation. The volatile political state experienced in England was basically because of the Industrial Revolution (Oksala, 2013). The Industrial Revolution caused a great deal of social agility to people of both the lower and middle classes in addition to more radical involvement. John Stuart Mill expressed this principle arguing 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. His good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.' (Mill, 1859). This principle is known as the harm principle and essentially states that liberty is legitimate to the extent that it does not cause harm to another individual.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Strength of Mill's Harm Principle

John Stuart Mills made remarkable efforts in fighting against societal norms and rallied for the need to defend freedom of individual expression. He stressed the gravity of self-independence and enlightened people on the downside of total submission to state demands (Mill, 1859). For this reason, Mill's insights and principle in a significant way resolved particular moral needs in societies, for example, in regard to the limits of individual rights. Mill's Harm principle aided in a societal awareness of the need to protect an individual's human and political rights. Mill also emphasized the limits of authority and the power a given state can exercise upon its citizens (Oksala, 2013). He believed no one should be victimized for not engaging or exercising his or her legal rights. Anyone is free to think and make personal choices without the interference of the government.

Objections to Harm's Principle

Even though Mill's Harm principle may appear simple comprehend, it necessitates several distinctions and definitional clarifications. For instance, his conception of freedom, criteria for harm to others, and the basis of rights. Mill exclusively addressed negative freedom, which refers to freedom from an outside constraint. Mill's Harm principle aimed to reconcile authority and liberty (Mill, 1859). He did so by outlining the parameters of state authority that could be legally enforced on people. To clearly state his variety of liberties, Mill highlights two spheres of society; private and public sphere. John Stuart Mill opposed that in the private field, freedom is unrestricted because harms, in this case, are concerns only self (Oksala, 2013). These liberties entail realization and awareness of feelings, thoughts, and views, and the freedom of association.

Mill explains his understanding of harm to others that harm is not limited to bodily injury, but rather best defined as obliteration to other people's interests. The interests that he considers relevant are rights-based (Oksala, 2013). Mill's justification for this is that rights are rules if adhered to, provides maximum utility. He further simplified the interpretations of the harm principle using coherent capacity and consent measures. He argued that persons who need care from others, for example, little children, must be safeguarded from self and external harm. According to Mill's harm principle, this thought is also applicable to communities who are still inept in advancing through freedom of speech and expression. He maintained that a person can knowingly and willingly agree to harm and that his principle outlined a clear and justified choice of freedoms (Mill, 1859). Therefore, Mill's interpretations of the private sphere give a rather vague definition of liberty. This is because the principle fails to factor in the general structure of privileges needed for self-empowerment.

Scope of Liberties

By his moral and political philosophies, John Mill tried to explain the need to put in place limits of freedom justification. As a result of this, society should demand an understandable and acceptable outline of liberties that are way beyond state sanctioning. He talked of several political rights, which he believed as absolute and contended that they are under the law's protection (Berlin, 1969). An example of such liberty is freedom of expression. According to Mill, unconditional and total freedom of speech is a type of freedom that the state has no power to impose sanctions. He believed that the act of speaking and freely expressing oneself is a means for truth and protect societies from corruption claws of government.

Nevertheless, Mill's perception of freedom and expression was hypothetical and standardized, for he believed that freedom of speech was essential for the development of ideas as well as self-improvement. Essentially, not all interpretation is speculative in the application, for some is purely real. Mill's Harm principle was positive about society's development through the liberty of speech. But then again, it may also have caused moral relapse, hence conflicting with his belief that democracy leads to human development. It indicated that there is a gap in Mill's harm principle application, which leaves us questioning the credibility of his school of thought (Berlin, 1969).

Furthermore, it suggests that Mill's principle is not a reliable instrument in deciding if a state is legally permitted to intervene with the actions of an individual. In a bid to rationalize the constraints of liberty, we need to consider other principles. For example, Joel Feinberg talked about the principle of offense. For example, hate speech, Mill believed that there is no need for any state intervention because there is no harm to third parties. In this case, the offense is a relevant consideration that the harm principle does not cover (Swift, 2001).

Another parallel objection claimed that Mill was extremely lenient. This gap was because his harm principle overlooked matters on suicide, drug usage, and abuse that are socially considered moral evils. Self-inflicted harm is still a harm, and therefore government intervention is acceptable in averting it. Additionally, there are some notions of morality that are independent of harm, and Mill needed to address why certain types of morality should not govern the law-making process. Unfortunately, the Harm principle fails to deliver a sufficient set of freedoms. Ironically, a times, the constraints of undesirable liberty are imposed to encourage positive independence in any given society or state (Swift, 2001).

Other ethical standards are equally significant when defining the extent of government interference, such as justice and equality. Libertarianism is likely to birth an unequal society where the government in power has no directive to avail equal opportunities and fair resource allocation to citizens. The concept of liberty seems slightly unreliable when people are incapable of using the freedom to improve and grow in their daily lives due to the possibility of abject poverty in societies. Here Mill's Harm principle entirely disregards such enabling possibilities (Wolff, 2006).

John Stuart Mill acknowledged that the harm principle was deficient by pointing out the example of one knowingly enslaving him or herself in whichever work contract there is. He alleged that no individual being should ever pact himself into bondage, for this hinders that person from actually enjoying future independence. He further argued that

that if we regard freedom as vital, then it is ironic to let freedom to eliminate the possibility of future liberty and hence the loss in its meaning (Berlin, 1969).

In this case, the harm involved seems to be exclusively self-regarding and consensual and hence does not fall under the jurisdiction of the harm principle. In this regard, the act is tantamount drug-use and suicide, which Mill considers to be part of our scheme of liberties. For Mill to state absolutely that no individual should be allowed to make this decision suggests that there are criteria and considerations other than the harm principle (Berlin, 1969). It calls for the need to judge the restriction of liberty and that harm to others is not only not sufficient; it is also not necessary.

Conclusion

Philosopher John Stuart Mill tried to distinguish legitimate and illegitimate freedom. Using the harm principle, specifying that limiting liberty is acceptable when it directly oversteps the rights of others. Even though Mill's harm principle was primarily alluring, it stipulated a specious model on freedoms. The Mill's Harm principle discounts moral values such as equality and justice and overlooks positive freedom crucial for the objectives that Mill desired to accomplish. Mill's Harm principle was flawed, peppered with discrepancies and illogicalities, and fails to stand up in the face of all objections thrown it's way.

References

Berlin, I. (1969). 'Two Concepts of Liberty,' in his Four Essays on Liberty (p 118-72). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mill, J. S. (1859). On Liberty. J. Gray (Ed.). "Of the Limits to the Authority of Society Over the Individual" (Ch.4). Oxford: Oxford University Press, (1991)

Miller, D. (2003). Political Philosophy: "Freedom and the Limits of Government" A Very Short Introduction (p. 57-68). Oxford: Oxford University Press

Oksala, J. (2013). Political Philosophy, "Liberty". (Ch. 7). London: Hodder & Stoughton,

Swift, A. (2001). Political Philosophy: A Beginners' Guide for Students and Politicians. "Liberty" (pt. 2). Cambridge: Polity

Wolff, J. (2006). An Introduction to Political Philosophy. "The Place of Liberty" (Ch.4), Oxford: Oxford University Press