Chpt 4 - Mills on liberty

The Limits of Society’s Authority Over the Individual” basically means:

how far should society be allowed to control what a person does, and where should personal freedom take over? It explores the balance between individual liberty and societal expectations, arguing that societal authority should only intervene to prevent harm to others.

John Stuart Mill is basically asking:

• What parts of life belong to you alone, and

• What parts belong to society, where it has the right to interfere?

The Question of Limits

Mill asks: How much control should society have over individuals, and how much freedom should individuals have over themselves?

• The answer: each should handle what concerns them most directly. Individuals control what mainly affects themselves; society oversees what affects the community.

The Harm Principle

Society (or the government) should only interfere with a person’s actions to prevent harm to others.

Example:

• You can choose to drink alcohol, even if it’s bad for you. That’s your choice.

• But you cannot drive drunk, because that harms others.

Mill on Utilitarianism

• His idea of utilitarianism is that society should promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number, but crucially:

  • Individuals are usually the best judges of their own happiness.

  • Freedom matters because letting people make their own choices generally produces more happiness than controlling them.

• He argues that interfering in someone’s life “for their own good” is risky, because the state rarely knows what truly makes them happy.

Key point

Mill ties freedom to utilitarianism—allowing people to live freely, as long as they don’t harm others, usually leads to more happiness for everyone.

Responsibilities of Individuals in Society

Even though society isn’t a formal contract, everyone benefits from it and therefore owes certain duties:

• Not to harm others’ rights.

• To contribute fairly to society’s protection.

Freedom in Self-Regarding Actions

John Stuart Mill argued that individuals should have absolute freedom in "self-regarding actions"—those that only affect the individual—because interfering with them violates personal sovereignty and is unjustifiable, even if the actions are considered foolish or immoral by others 

• but we must use persuasion and example, not force, to guide their choices. Individuals are most knowledgeable about their own lives, so society is likely to make mistakes if it intervenes in personal matters.

influence and Opinion

• People naturally form opinions about others’ personal conduct. This is fine, but society should not actively interfere.

• Individuals will face natural consequences—like losing respect, admiration, or social opportunities—but this is different from punishment.

• True social punishment is only justified when someone’s actions harm others.

Self-regarding actions:

things that affect only the individual (e.g., personal habits). Society can advise but should not coerce.

Other-regarding actions:

things that harm others (e.g., theft, lying, cruelty). These deserve social and legal sanctions.

Examples of Improper Interference

Mill gives historical and contemporary examples where society oversteps:

• Religious practices: forcing people to follow a certain religion or avoid forbidden foods.

• Leisure and amusements: Puritans tried to ban music, dancing, and theaters.

• Prohibition and temperance laws: preventing people from drinking alcohol, even when it only affects themselves.

• Sabbatarian laws: restricting Sunday activities, beyond what is needed for others’ work or convenience.

• Mormon polygamy: outsiders wishing to interfere in a community that consents voluntarily among its members.

The Principle

society should only intervene to prevent direct harm to others. Interference in self-regarding matters is often wrong, unnecessary, and likely to backfire.

The Goal

The aim is a balance: individuals have liberty in matters concerning only themselves, and society regulates only what affects others.

• Respect for personal freedom allows diversity, experimentation in life, and the development of individual judgment.

“The Danger of Moral Policing”

• Sometimes, society (or the majority of people) tries to control how individuals act because they think it’s “immoral” or “wrong.”

• Mill says this is dangerous because:

  1. It’s often wrong – Society doesn’t always know what’s truly right or wrong for someone else.

  2. It can be unfair – People may get punished or judged even when they’re not actually harming anyone.

  3. It limits freedom – Forcing everyone to follow the majority’s ideas stops individuals from living how they want.

Why Mill focuses on happiness

• Mill asks: how do we know what is good?

• He can’t rely on abstract reasoning or God or “universal truths” in a way that proves something is good beyond experience.

• Instead, he looks at what people actually desire. Since everyone wants their own happiness, happiness itself is “good”.

• From this, he extends the idea to society: if everyone’s happiness is good individually, the sum of all happiness (the general happiness) is also good.

He argues:

you can only test moral truths by looking at what people actually desire and what promotes well-being.

Key takeaway for utilitarianism in this chapter

• Happiness is the only intrinsic good.

• Virtue and other “goods” are valuable because they contribute to happiness.

• The moral goal is to maximize happiness for everyone.