On Liberty

by

John Stuart Mill

On Liberty: Chapter 4 Summary & Analysis

Summary
Analysis
Mill argues that individuals should be free to act in any way they want provided the action only affects themselves, not other people. When individual actions do affect others, society should be free to interfere. Mill asserts that while “society is not founded on a contract,” everyone who lives in society owes something to it in return. This means individuals do not have the right to hurt fellow citizens (which includes hindering them from pursuing their personal interests) and they must contribute to the maintenance and security of society against harm. These are things society is justified in enforcing legally; society can also punish people through public opinion of them if they hurt others without technically violating their legal rights. However, society’s right to interfere does not extend to individual actions that only affect the individual, provided they can make reasonable decisions.
When Mill argues that “society is not founded on a contract,” he seems to be referencing Enlightenment thinker Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s political treatise, The Social Contract. In it, Rousseau asserts that society is based on a contract between leaders and followers. This contract establishes what the relationship between leaders and subjects should be as well as what individuals owe to society for being allowed to live in it. Mill again shares his opinion that people are only free to act if they don’t hurt anyone else, and society is only justified in interfering with individual conduct if it affects someone else.
Themes
Liberty and Authority Theme Icon
Social Tyranny and Custom Theme Icon
Mill assures the reader that he doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t take an interest in another individual’s conduct. On the contrary, people should want to help each other make good choices for their lives and discourage each other from making bad ones. However, nobody has the right to prohibit a capable adult from having the ultimate say in their individual conduct. Only individuals can determine what their best interest is; the interest of society or other people in their actions is typically indirect and secondary. General rules should be enforced for how people treat each other, but not for how they treat themselves—any consequences that a person might inadvertently inflict on themselves are outweighed by the great evil of letting other people think and decide for them.
It is in society’s best interest that the individuals who make it up should make good decisions. It’s even more important that they should actively choose to make good decisions instead of passively accepting a decision because it’s in keeping with social customs. Furthermore, when society makes rules for how a person can or cannot treat themselves, it encroaches on the individual’s basic liberty.
Themes
Liberty and Authority Theme Icon
Social Tyranny and Custom Theme Icon
Quotes
Mill also says he doesn’t mean to imply that a person shouldn’t be judged by others based on their merits. Society may either admire or condemn an individual for having either good or bad qualities, respectively. A person may be widely avoided or condemned for having extremely negative personal qualities even though they don’t impact anyone else, and it is an act of charity to tell them about these bad qualities before they get out of hand. Furthermore, people have a right to act on their bad opinion of another person by avoiding them, warning others to avoid them, or giving another person preferential treatment over the other, as long as one does all these things honestly instead of maliciously. In this way, society naturally punishes individuals for cultivating offensive habits or characteristics even though the individual isn’t breaking a law.
There is a difference between avoiding a person because they’re obnoxious and making a point of avoiding someone as a way to punish then: the former is done to protect one’s self from needlessly uncomfortable social interaction, the other is meant to inflict pain on another person (which, by Mill’s definition, is a violation of their rights). Furthermore, it’s better to help a person rectify their bad behavior instead of ignoring it because it’s better to eliminate an annoyance than spend one’s time and energy trying to avoid it.
Themes
Individuality vs. Conformity Theme Icon
Social Tyranny and Custom Theme Icon
Mill writes that the minor inconveniences an individual suffers because society judges them negatively for personal conduct is the full extent of what society can inflict on them for actions that only affect themselves. However, when another person is hurt—such as when one individual lies to or takes unfair advantage of another—punishment and reprobation is justified. The personal qualities that lead to conduct that harms others are also worthy of public abhorrence but cannot be punished as actions. Individuals are not accountable to society for their own lack of self-respect or moral development. People can distance themselves from an unfavorable person, but they cannot punish that person for being unlikable. Instead, people should bear in mind that this individual is already suffering for their mistakes, requires help, and people should treat them with patience instead of anger unless they have violated the rights or safety of others.
People can’t be punished for their personal qualities. In other words, they can’t be punished for simply being who they are or for their natural faults. People might be justified in helping others get rid of bad qualities and develop good ones, but they are not justified in causing such a person an injury just because they’re annoying or offensive. Above all things, Mill argues for patience when dealing with someone who’s behavior is obnoxious because this helps maintain social peace between people.
Themes
Liberty and Authority Theme Icon
Social Tyranny and Custom Theme Icon
Quotes
Get the entire On Liberty LitChart as a printable PDF.
On Liberty PDF
Mill admits that many people will reject the idea that there is a meaningful distinction between behavior that only affects an individual and behavior that affects others. The grounds for this argument are that nobody exists in total isolation, they have relationships that might be indirectly hurt by their actions. Society, too, may be hurt by an individual’s mistakes because they may render themselves unable to contribute to society or even deplete society’s resources. Additionally, an individual may hurt society by setting a bad example to others. Mill also acknowledges that people will question whether society really has no right to interfere with adults who are evidently unfit to make good choices, or if society is truly not justified in prohibiting things (like gambling) that have long been established as moral vices. These rules, of course, would not limit individuality, but protect people from repeating the mistakes of past generations.
Mill acknowledges that there are adults in a society that might not be fit to make reasonable decisions. This could be because they have a mental illness or they might even be drunk. In both cases, however, society is not only justified but encouraged to help them make good choices because otherwise they might make a decision that hurts themselves, others, or society in general.
Themes
Liberty and Authority Theme Icon
Mill acknowledges the truth of these concerns and explains how society should determine whether to interfere. When a person violates an obligation they owe others through their actions—like spending money they owe to others or making an investment that deprives their family of money they need to support themselves—then society is justified in reprobating or punishing them. Similarly, if a person makes a selfish choice that prevents them from being able to perform a duty they owe to society, then they can be punished for it. As an example, Mill says nobody can be punished for being drunk, but a soldier can be punished for being drunk when they’re supposed to be working. In other words, simply risking damage to another person or society, the action is subject to the judgment of public opinion or the law.
Forming obligations is nearly always optional—one chooses to take out a loan or get married. However, once one enters an obligation, they also choose to place new limits on their actions because they are no longer free to follow their impulses; they must stop and think of the people (either individuals or society in general) who are counting on them to honor their obligations. However, this might actually be a good thing because it might be enough to prevent individuals from committing a painful mistake. 
Themes
Liberty and Authority Theme Icon
Social Tyranny and Custom Theme Icon
However, when a person’s individual conduct doesn’t violate their duty to society or hurt another person other than themselves, society must simply deal with the inconvenience. Furthermore, Mill believes that if a person is going to punished for not taking proper care of themselves, then it should be for their protection instead of under the pretense of the public welfare. However, Mill also argues that society must wait until a person has committed a wrong to interfere because society has almost total control over people’s development from the time they’re children through education. Indeed, the current generation is best equipped to prepare the next generation for to be just as successful as the current, if not more so. Because of this, society has nobody to blame but itself if adults are generally incapable of reasonableness.
Society itself creates the people who make it up. In other words, one of society’s duties to individuals is to help prepare them to lead honest, productive, and useful lives as adults. When society neglects that duty, it violates its obligations and is therefore deserving of whatever evils befall it as a result. This is something the current generation must keep in mind when they interact with the next generation if they want to ensure their society’s continued success.
Themes
Liberty and Authority Theme Icon
Mill states that society is already equipped with providing education and the power of prevailing opinions (which exercises control over individual minds), so it shouldn’t also have the power to demand obedience to rules governing individual conduct that doesn’t affect other people. Furthermore, Mill maintains that if there are any individuals with strong characters in society, they would rebel against overbearing authority and even act in opposition to it. Also, Mill believes that when it comes to setting an example to others, if an individual is making choices that only hurt them individually, then they also set an example of the natural consequences of poor behavior. 
Mill doesn’t deny that society should have some power over the people who make it up—including to help educate them for active social involvement and to pass judgment on people who violate established social rules—but this passage highlights how difficult it can be to determine just how much power society should have. If a society has too much power, there might be a rebellion that creates long-lasting damage if it gets out of hand; not enough power, and a society can’t effectively prepare individuals for a productive social life.
Themes
Liberty and Authority Theme Icon
Quotes
According to Mill, the greatest argument against society’s interference in an individual’s actions (aside from those which affect others) is that when it does, it is frequently wrong because it’s driven by “overruling majority” without considering the opinions and particular beliefs of the minority. There are people who are offended by the opinions other people hold and both sides can get passionate about it, but Mill believes there is no real similarity between the feelings of one person for their opinions and another who resents or is offended by that opinion. When society interferes in human affairs, it is usually because it’s offended by someone acting differently from the established norm, although people try to attribute the need for interference to religion. Those who do this argue that certain dictates are right simply because they are, and so society must accept them.
Majority rule fails to account for individuality, and so a society driven by the majority will be unable to really understand or help members of minority groups. The difference between a person who holds an opinion and one who is offended by that opinion is that the person who holds the opinion owns that opinion; on the other hand, the person who’s offended by the opinion wishes to deprive them of it. Only one of these things (wishing to deprive someone of an opinion) is a violation of individual liberty and so it is the only sentiment worthy of abhorrence.
Themes
Liberty and Authority Theme Icon
Social Tyranny and Custom Theme Icon
Mill states that he wants to provide examples of people’s tendency to employ a “moral police” that encroaches too far on individual liberty. The first example includes Muslim societies in which the majority refuses to eat pork because of their religious beliefs. If they established a law which prohibited eating pork, nobody could accuse them of religious persecution because nobody’s religion requires them to eat pork, but some might see it as a violation of individual liberty. A similar question can be asked about the rightness of laws prohibiting all clergy from marrying in Spain, which is predominately Catholic (Catholicism prohibits clergy from marrying). People who think these things are immoral can make a compelling argument in favor of suppressing them, but by this logic they must be willing to accept being suppressed in the name or morality in societies in which they are a minority.
Having a “moral police” is in itself a violation of individual liberty. People must be allowed to form their own opinions and, by extension, their own morals. A “moral police” would either try to force morals on others, or at least try to make them outwardly conform to them. Furthermore, just because the majority of a society supports certain rules or laws doesn’t mean society in general supports them—even the majority is only one part of society, as Mill explained in the beginning of the essay. 
Themes
Liberty and Authority Theme Icon
Social Tyranny and Custom Theme Icon
Mill writes that some other examples that occur closer to home might be easier to understand or relate to. These examples include limitations being placed on how people are allowed to enjoy their free time or the general disapprobation (namely in the United States) of people frivolously spending money even if they can afford it. As far as laws that encroach on individual liberty goes, Mill uses a widespread American law prohibiting the sale of alcohol as an example. This law, however, punishes people for drinking alcohol (a private act and the one society wishes to stop) rather than for selling it (a public act) because people consider drinking alcohol a potential threat to individual security. Mill argues that this perspective of social rights is dangerous because it can be used to punish any kind of behavior any individual disagrees with or claims to be offended by.
One of the fundamental tenets of individual liberty is that people are free to act however they want privately because if it’s private, it can’t hurt another person. However, public acts can hurt others. This explains why Mill felt it important to point out that, under America’s prohibition law, people were being punished for largely private acts. Under this condition, America cannot truly call itself free.
Themes
Liberty and Authority Theme Icon
Quotes
Literary Devices
Mill says that a similar argument can be made about the legislation that demands certain types of work stop on Sundays because it’s considered a religious day (notably only by Christians, not by Jews or many other minority religious). This legislation prevents individual people from deciding whether to work on Sundays, which encroaches on individual liberty. Furthermore, it favors one group’s beliefs over another’s. In a similar vein, Mill sharply criticizes American society and government for persecuting Mormons for practicing polygamy in the desert after being driven out of their home state. Although Mill doesn’t agree with polygamy himself, he believes that if it only occurs between consenting adults, then nobody has the right to punish them for it. Furthermore, external interference on behalf of oppressed people is only acceptable when those people ask for it.
The fact that Sundays are legally observed as a day of rest (for most) shows just how much power Christian teachings have over English society. While English society is generally willing to acknowledge and respect Christian beliefs, Mill implies that society might not be so willing to do the same for other religions—lest the majority was from that religion. The story of the Mormons is unique because they are a form of Christianity, and American society’s persecution of them highlights the fact that, really, only some forms of Christianity are truly tolerated.
Themes
Liberty and Authority Theme Icon