On Liberty: Chapter 1 Summary & Analysis

Mill begins by explaining that this essay is about “Civil, or Social Liberty,” which has to do with what kind of power can be “legitimately exercised” over individuals and how far that power should extend. Mill believes that this question is vitally important for the future, although it is not a new one. Indeed, mankind has been divided over this question since the dawn of civilization and the struggle between people’s love of freedom and aversion to authority characterized Western history from time immemorial. Mill explains that, in this context, liberty means protection from political tyranny. This was especially true in the distant past when one person or small group of people typically held all the political power and could do with it what they pleased. This power was seen as both necessary for protection but dangerous because that power could be used against citizens as well as external threats.

Mill writes that even though rulers were considered potentially dangerous, people thought it necessary to have one in order to help defend weaker citizens from stronger ones. To that end, “patriots” made various rules that would limit the amount of power a ruler could rightfully exercise over society. This was done in two ways: by establishing legal rights for citizens of the state (and, if the ruler infringed upon them, it would justify rebellion) and by forming a representative body chosen by the community to make important decisions. In Europe, rulers were somehow compelled to adhere to this first method, but putting the second method into practice was harder. However, Mill asserts that most people reconciled themselves to being ruled by a single leader so long as that leader didn’t infringe too heavily on their liberty.

Eventually, people began to believe that political rulers should not be an independent body with its own interests. Instead, people embraced the idea that they should be able to remove magistrates and other leaders from their offices “at their pleasure.” To many, this seemed the only way to prevent leaders from abusing their power. Ultimately, the cry for “elective and temporary rulers” overcame the cry for limiting the power of rulers. Mill writes that limiting a ruler’s power was simply something to use against rulers whose personal interests opposed society’s. This new trend indicated a growing desire for leaders whose will was the same as the people’s, who were chosen by and responsible to the citizens, and who could be removed from office for violating the trust people put in them. This thinking, Mill writes, gained popularity in the previous generation and is still prevalent in Continental Europe today.

Mill writes that despite the high hopes people had for this new form of government, time revealed the system’s faults. For instance, people initially believed that they didn’t need to limit their own power over themselves, but they soon discovered that only the will of the most politically active or biggest group of people was reflected in the actions of the representative government. In other words, the majority can oppress and tyrannize over the minority. This means that limiting the government’s power means nothing when the government is beholden to the will of the majority. Mill calls this “the tyranny of the majority” and says the concept is generally considered a problem that society must protect itself against.

Mill writes that the tyranny of the majority was initially dreaded on political grounds. Mill argues, however, that when society is the tyrant, the methods it uses to oppress individuals go beyond political action because society also creates its own rules. In this respect, social tyranny can be far more dangerous than political tyranny because it is far more difficult to escape it. Because of this, Mill asserts that society must protect itself from social as well as political tyranny. Mill believes that there should be a limit to how much power public opinion should have over individual lives, and it is society’s duty to determine these limits and maintain them. Mill doesn’t think anyone would object to this in theory, but the practical question of how to do it is harder to answer. After all, everyone’s happiness depends on limits being placed—both legally and socially—on people’s actions. 

Mill explains that the question of what rules should be imposed on a society has always been important, and the answers tend to change from one generation to the next. Still, each generation thinks the answer is as simple as if everyone has always agreed on it. Mill argues that this is an “illusion” that he attributes to custom, which is frequently mistaken for human nature and which people generally don’t question. Furthermore, individuals believe that others should have to act the way they want them to. This is based on opinion instead of reason, but if by chance others share the same opinion then it’s accepted as an adequate reason to expect others to conform to it.

Consequently, Mill says that whenever there’s an “ascendant class,” most of the “morality” of the country stems from that class’s interests—people either conform to or reject that morality depending on whether the “ascendant class” is popular or not. In this way, mankind is subservient to what they believe are the opinions of the ruling classes. Mill maintains that this isn’t hypocritical of mankind because it has inspired genuine feelings that have led to the establishment of new moralities that have nothing to do with class interests. While many people have theorized about what rules society ought to follow, few have explored the question of whether opinions should “be a law to individuals.” In some cases, they try to turn people against the opinions that they themselves don’t live up to rather than advocating for greater general freedom.

Mill says there’s one subject on which people generally take the “higher ground”: religion. Religious hatred (odium theologicum) is one example of the fallibility of prevailing morality—it is hatred, which is bad, but it’s still a “moral feeling.” Mill provides an example of how religious hatred has prevailed in history: when groups of people began leaving the “Universal Church,” they were as unwilling to tolerate religious differences as that church. At the end of this battle between different religious sects for supremacy, all the different churches had to ask to simply exist and differ in peace. Mill believes the world owes thanks to a few writers who advocated for freedom of conscience and rejected the notion that individuals must belong to one religion or another. Still, intolerance runs rampant and very few societies have truly achieved religious freedom and some societies are prejudiced towards specific religions or beliefs. 

Mill writes that in England, the law is relatively light while social opinion is uncommonly heavy. Furthermore, most English citizens are particularly sensitive about the idea of direct government involvement in their personal lives because they maintain the belief that the interests of politicians are opposed to the interests of the people—they have not yet fully adopted the idea that they control the government. Mill believes part of this is because there’s no widely recognized rules for how much power the government should have over individual lives, and the opinions on this are so widely varied that it’d be difficult to find enough common ground to appease everyone.

Mill asserts that this essay’s purpose is to identify a principle that can determine the extent to which society can deal with individuals through political and/or social means. Mill identifies this principle as “self-protection,” and it’s the only ground on which others are justified in interfering with individual lives. While society can plead or argue with an individual to either do or not do something, they cannot force that person into any course of action or inaction. The only element of personal conduct for which a person must answer to society is that which affects other people. Over one’s self, however, the individual has entire control. This concept only applies to capable adults, not children or minors. Additionally, Mill argues that “Despotism is […] legitimate” when it comes to “dealing with barbarians” with the intention of improving their lives.

Mill also explains that he believes “utility” is the greatest reason for determining the answer to all ethical questions if it’s founded on the long-term best interests of humanity, which will progress and change over time. Mill believes this justifies placing limits on people’s behavior when that behavior affects other people. When one person does something that hurts another, that person should be punished either legally or through public opinion. Furthermore, people can be compelled to do things that will help others, such as testifying at trial or standing up for someone who’s being victimized somehow. Inaction, too, can be punished if it results in another person being hurt. This, however, has exceptions, such as when any action might create worse evils. In these cases, Mill believes that the person’s conscience is an adequate judge, and they need not be externally punished.

Any actions or choices a person makes that only directly affect themselves is outside the realm of society’s right to interfere. Mill identifies this as the “appropriate region of human liberty.” It includes inward thoughts, the freedom of forming and sharing opinions and ideas, the freedom to choose one’s own path in life and how to follow it, and the freedom to congregate with other people for any reason other than to cause harm to anyone else. Without these liberties, no society is truly free no matter what kind of government it has. Mill argues that the only freedom worth having is that which allows people to follow their own happiness in their own way as long as they don’t hinder others from doing the same. Ultimately, humanity thrives under these conditions rather than by being compelled to live a certain way.

Mill says that this concept isn’t new, and it opposes society’s tendency to try to compel individuals to conform to accepted standards of living. In ancient times, governments directly interfered in personal lives to force people to live up to certain standards. This might have been acceptable in some cases back then but has no place in the modern day. Still, society attempts to control individuals within it by fighting back against any divergence from the prevailing opinions. Mill also says that, more and more often, society tries to exert control over the individual through legislation as well as through social opinion. Although this strengthens society by creating unity, it also diminishes individuality and is characteristic of the human tendency to try to force one’s own opinions about how to navigate life on everyone else. The power to do this, unfortunately, is growing rather than shrinking.

Mill says it will be easier for him to focus his next argument on the topic of independence of thought rather than the broader subject of human liberty in general. The freedom of thought is, as Mill explains, inseparable from the freedom of writing, publishing, and speaking. Although many societies accept this basic freedom, many don’t understand the ideas upon which it’s founded. Mill says it’s important to understand these grounds because they can also be applied to other basic liberties.