Mill insisted on liberty of thought and expression and liberty of conduct. He was an ardent supporter of freedom of speech and opinion. He felt that if truth is to prevail ultimately, all ideas must be left alone to compete, as free discussions can nourish fruitful ideas. His opinion that ‘all mankind minus one lacks the right to coerce the single dissident’ exemplifies his passion for freedom of speech and expression. In fact, this was not only to secure the freedom of the individual against the arbitrariness of the State but also against possible tyranny of public opinion or what we can say of the majority in a democracy. Thus, Mill can be termed as a votary of ‘survival of fittest’ in the field of ideas.
This passion for liberty and freedom can be linked to his views on self-development and self-realization. Can there be self-development and moral upliftment of individual and community without liberty? This was the question Mill must have asked and answered. His primary definition of liberty as ‘sovereignty of the individual over himself’ or ‘being left to oneself’ is directed towards this answer. Here he advocates a concept of liberty based on noninterference, and to that extent, espouses the cause of a negative liberal. However, this is to secure the condition for moral development. Liberty would help choose from conflicting ideas and also generate a sense of moral responsibility. Mill’s concept of liberty to be meaningful to his concept of moral and self-development principle has to admit limitation. Though noninterference in an individual’s liberty of action is justified, it has to be prevented from harming others.36
This admission brings Mill to his famous differentiation of actions or conduct: self-regarding actions and other-regarding actions. He does not admit any interference to self-regarding actions of individuals unless they produce demonstrable harmful effect on others. However, in terms of actions that affect others, he leaves the space open for interference, as this would be necessary for public interest and welfare. Mill’s other definition of liberty, ‘liberty consists in doing what one desires, seems to be different from the first one, ‘being left to oneself’. While the latter is negative liberty, ‘freedom from’, the former it positive liberty, ‘freedom to’. If one is prevented from crossing a bridge, known to be unsafe, over a river and if liberty is what one desires, the prevention is desirable rather than crossing and falling into the river. While in a negative sense, liberty is being left to cross the river and fall, in a positive sense, it is freedom to live and for this it is open to interference.
However, many commentators have criticized Mill’s differentiation between ‘self’- and ‘other-regarding’ actions. Barker, for example, maintains that it may not be possible to differentiate actions of individual into two compartments. He suggests, it is possible rather to separate between the sphere of society—cooperative and voluntary acts and that of the state—compulsory acts.37 Sabine feels that Mill’s self-regarding actions would be convincing only when there was a body of natural rights belonging intrinsically to individuals of which they ought never to be deprived.38 We know that the concept of natural rights was not acceptable to the Utilitarians. It may be argued in favour of Mill that his differentiation was to plead for a liberal society based on respect for each other’s opinion and freedom of speech. However, Mill’s ‘other-regarding actions’ leave enough room for interference from both society and the state.
Leave a Reply