John Stuart MillOn Liberty (Dover Thrift Editions: Philosophy)

Liberty is something we in the western world take for granted these days, and it’s important to remember that humankind was not always so generously geared towards personal autonomy. Published in 1859, Mill was at the forefront of political science and philosophy thinkers when he proffered his ideas on the subject. “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign,” he writes.Once we move past this initial foray into the principles of liberty, Mill furthers his offered opinions. He warns us about the oppression of the ideals of the majority towards the minority. These ideas can be captivating, sometimes to the point of detriment. We can see it in society today, how so many of us find opposing ideas (especially political ones) truly intolerable. If we have progressed to a point in society where we accept other people’s religions and sexualities, why do we struggle so much to accept different ideological points of view? On this, Mill says that “There is no parity between the feeling of a person for his own opinion, and the feeling of another who is offended at his holding it; no more than between the desire of a thief to take a purse, and the desire of the right owner to keep it.” I find this sentiment to be alarmingly true, and may we ring all the bells in the land with its message.The truth is that there is a necessity for opposition to ideas. That is how shaky ideas become strong or how weak ideas are proven anemic. There is tremendous danger in relegating popular ideas to the forefront of public opinion and vilifying opposition. The best ideas are the ones that have continually stood the test of time, repelling opposition not with crushing force, but with uplifting power. For example, ancient tribes used to sacrifice human lives to the Gods for the hope of a better harvest. As civilizations grew, they eventually decided life shouldn’t be ended so simply. Death then became a punishment for wrongdoing, and over the course of centuries slowly transitioned from barbaric to (relatively) humane. Eventually, as a more modern society emerged, we came to condemn the taking of human life with more frequency, until now it is a rarity. History shows us that the acceptable reasons for ending a human life has been a debate for the entirety of humanity. The reason we live in a world today where you don’t lose your life for stealing a sheep is because enough people, over time, spoke up and said it was a bad idea, preferring alternative punishments. This is but an example of how different opinions on a single subject are required to continually clash and debate as to what is most correct. Here we see the good idea (valuing human life) winning over the bad (seeing human life as insignificant) due to the trials of time and ideological combat.By today’s standards, much of what Mill writes would be considered Libertarian ideology. Basically, get the government and any oppressive bodies of influence out of the individual’s life. The only exception is when an individual would bring harm to another. This is where the government would have an obligation to step in, ultimately in the pursuit of a safer society for all.One of the areas that becomes grey is the relationship between parents and their children. Parents have a moral obligation to raise their children to the best of their ability, but what happens if a man has no desire to be a part of his child’s life. Can society demand that he participate against his will? What about a contrary case study with a parent who is raising a child to be an abomination. Does a ruling body have authority to step in and violate the liberty of the parent on behalf of the wellbeing of the child? The answers are tricky and each scenario must be evaluated case by case. Even still, decisions made cannot be assured with one hundred percent certainty and approval from all parties. Hopefully, over time and continual debate, humanity will continue to get better at solving this age-old dilemma.This balance between societal prosperity and personal liberty is constantly teetering back and forth. It is the crux at where we live. Something I think important to remember, phrased quite eloquently by Mill, goes like this: “In the human mind, one-sidedness has always been the rule, and many-sidedness the exception.” Essentially, if we want to keep our balance as a society, it is important to hear and understand people’s differing ideas. Only with this mutual respect for each other’s ideological liberties can we continue to move forward collectively.

The editor's introduction serves as an excellent assistant to newcomers like myself to political and ethical philosophy. A 55 pages introduction is divided into four sections.The first goes briefly into the historical account of Mill's life and how it has shaped his political views. The second introduces Mill's version of Bentham's Utilitarianism.The third sections reviews the five chapters of the book, briefly describing each's main topics. The best part is the last, introducing crtical issues that has been discussed and debated in the book. Various views of Aristotle, Hart, Dworkin and, Devlin are presented versus that of Mill's. This specifically strengthens your understanding of the issues presented and paves the way for an enjoyable reading adventure...sherif

I have the Kindle version. The author is quite intelligent and has thought carefully about the subject. His principle that a person should have liberty to do or not to do those things that only affect that person seems compelling until one reads all the qualifications that the author believes society may place upon this principle.The author recognizes that societies generally form customs that govern a person's conduct more completely than duly enacted legal compulsions. Customs may arise from the opinions of the broad of humanity, which may not reflect the best opinion. He argues in favor of permitting freely the formation of opinions so long as their expression does not harm others. As I write this in 2024, one can always find those who express outrage at any opinion. In the US today if someone opined that the sun rises in the east, I expect the media to find someone to denounce this thought.When the author wrote this the separation of state and church was not nearly as total as it is today. A 21st century reader may well wonder at what practices the author rails against. He does launch an unexpected attack on the Mormon religion, which I hadn't realized that the English were even aware of in the 19th century.The author is clearly very intelligent and writes well. Many of the fights between society and the individual that he examines occur today, but the subject matter has changed from the topics that he describes.If you have an interest in the topic and are looking for some historical backdrop, the book doesn't take too long to read. I gave it 4 stars because I found that it provided guidance on personal freedom, but not enough to be really helpful.

Should be included in your library

As a utilitarianist, Mill delivers his arguments in a much less passionate though logical way. While this makes it sound like a boring read (well, maybe sometimes but not often) it actually provides a style which many philosophers hesitated. Instead of making existential pleas for his case, Mill simply derives the value of each point he makes. On women's rights, he is clearly pro, but not for any moral reason but because women are just as human as men and their equality means they should be utilized fully in thinking and labor.Much of the book focuses on discourse and how it should be uninhibited. Utilitarianism is a great tool for such ends. For instance, when environmentalists claim that the planet is being raped and that we have a moral obligation to stop it, a better argument may be the financial and quality of life costs we are accruing.Mill is one of the great philosophers and has had great influence in America. There's a reason for it: a unique perspective applicable to the greater parts of our society.