Type 1: On Liberty
Chapter 1 of On Liberty by John Stuart Mill details the history of the struggle between liberty and authority. In the time of despotism, authority was necessary to maintain a stable state of being for a country and liberty prevented authority from abuse by detailing rights and eventually issuing constitutional checks on government. As political conditions stabilized, the people realized that their government did not need to be at odds with liberty, that they wished for temporary representatives to limit power, and that the interests of those in power should be well aligned with their own interests. Mill makes it clear that government is not the sole threat to liberty and that the majority group of a society can also oppress the minority of that society because of the opinions and judgement of the majority. Mill raises the question of what is considered illegal in the first chapter and how the rule of law is determined within a society. In the United States, these issues are still being debated and determined. For example, the legal debate over same sex marriage was only recently settled by Obergefell v. Hodges case in 2015, which declared same sex marriage legal in all of the United States. Before this landmark decision was made, states were able to bar same sex couples from marriage because they felt it was immoral. Near the end of the chapter, Mill clarifies that his main point of his writing focuses around the harm principle that establishes a rule to determine if an individual’s behavior is punishable. If an individual’s behavior causes harm to society members, then it is punishable by law.
In the fourth chapter, Mill debates the balance between individuality and societal life for the individual. If one is a member of society, then one should maintain a certain approved line of conduct. When someone in our society acts against our interests but doesn’t directly cause harm to others (and is thereby not punishable by law) we have the right to distance ourselves from them. Mill specifies what responses are appropriate behavior for an individual acting in distaste of society. One can act in guiding benevolence or be indifferent to their case at worst. It is unacceptable for society to make an individual’s life more difficult because of past actions that are unaligned to our own values. Additionally, the generation who comes before has the responsibility to shape and prepare the newer generation to be capable of rational thought to determine right from wrong. Outside of this guidance from peers, it really comes down to everyone making autonomous decisions for themselves at the end of the day. In fact, individuals have the right to make these choices. In this chapter, Mills begins to question the line between Governmental guidance about what is beneficial to us personally and what is our own decision to make.
In the fifth chapter, Mill applies the concepts in the fourth chapter to reality. He discusses the line between what is not subject to intervention because of individuality and the action’s self-regarding nature and what is subject to intervention by being deemed illegal. Among the topics covered are preventative law which attempts to warn in case of accident and vices like drunkenness and gambling. An individual while drunk may be viewed as immoral by society but is not subject to legal intervention because his action is self regulating. However, when said individual begins to harm others while drunk, legal action is justifiable because of the Harm Principle. This distinction between what is and isn’t subject to legal punishment based on the Harm Principle relates to such controversial laws such as bills which threaten the availability of abortion healthcare services to women. According to Mill’s explanations, while portions of society believe women seeking abortion healthcare services are immoral, they cause no harm to other members of society and thus should not be subject to legal restrictions and punishments.
On Liberty by John Stuart Mill is an informative text that provides a guiding principle to evaluate the correctness of laws in the United States legal system. While the Harm Principle is not integrated in the United States Constitution and is thus not integrated in the process of judicial review, it does provide an additional ethical and objective view to debate the validity of governmental action over individuals.
