John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty was more of a continuation of some, if not most of his past works because of the presence of the same ideas and principles he used in writing On Liberty. A reader who was able to read Mill’s past works would certainly be able to identify that he was the same author who wrote the book because what he basically wrote in On Liberty are his personal—based on experience, beliefs and perceptions of the importance, to man and society, of a large variety in types of character, and giving of full freedom to human nature to expand itself in innumerable and conflicting directions” . Mill promoted human beings’ capability to be unique and individual. He suggested that human beings do not always have to conform and compromise their beliefs, their standings, and their ideologies just so because they can blend in to society’s standards. He rejects ideas and attempts that are based on social pressure and in more extreme cases, legal coercion as a result of resistance to conformity. There have been many reported cases related to this, especially in more religiously and culturally conservative countries outside the United States. Mill’s believed that legal coercion is completely unnecessary unless a person or a group’s actions or beliefs already pose a threat or cause harm and other negative effects to other people. Generally, society, which should be led by those in the power, the government officials, should honor and respect every person’s individuality, and the naturally-occurring diversity in the society.
Indifference is the word I like to use to interpret the sentence “there are many who consider as an injury to themselves any conduct which they have a distaste for, and resent it as an outrage to their feelings.” The divine law itself suggests that even if humans were created equally—based on the image of Gods, there would still be traits and other variables that would differentiate one from the other. In short, every human being is unique in its way. Now, add the fact that humans were also granted the so-called freewill and the context becomes more favorable for individuality and indifference.
Many people think that helping and in some cases, even taking care of others is a social responsibility. Well, in most cases, helping those that are in need is a must and is valid to be considered as a social responsibility but going too far, dictating what a person should do, and most importantly, doing things that you really do not like is technically an act of a stupid man. That would be like trespassing a man’s thought just because another person wants that man to conform to society’s norms and standards. If only the divine law will be used by the judges’ in sentencing instead of the civil and common laws, many people would surely be incarcerated.
An example of such trespass, as used by Mills in his book would be the prohibition of the manufacture and use—except for medical purposes, of all types of fermented drinks in nearly half of the United States. The law was passed because of the negative effects of alcoholic beverages to a person’s sanity. Society badly wanted to protect its members that it persuaded the government to issue the ban. However, that would be entirely against the free will of many. That would be like deciding for the people even if they have the capacity to decide for themselves. If there is someone who would be harmed or affected from consuming fermented drinks, it would be those people. Mill further supported his belief that “every person should be given the right to act as they wish as long as the negative consequences of such actions are only felt by that person”, or in other words, do not affect other people.
I disagree that polygamy should be left unlegislated or uncontrolled by society. Enabling a polygamous culture to flourish entirely contradicts or negates Mill’s definition of social autonomy. He believed that every person can act as he wishes as long as no other people suffer the consequences. In a polygamous family setting, it is not only the polygamous father who would get affected. Everyone in the family would be the victim; the mother, and the children would all be victims. In most cases, the mother would be able to accept the fact that the husband is not entirely hers but the pressure would be too much to handle for the children. The divided attention of the father between his families would mean less attention and guidance provided to his children as they grow up. That would be comparable to having no father at all.
Mill’s suggestions and ideas about autonomy in the society are good. The problem is how are the people in the society going to apply it? His ideologies about when or how other people may get affected by one free man’s actions is rather vague.
Works Cited
Brack, D. "Great Liberals." Journal of Liberal History (2007).
Devlin, P. "The enforcement of morals." Oxford University Press (1965).
HUP. "Summary of On Liberty by John Stuart Mill." Harvard Unversity Press (2012).
Mill, J.S. "Oh Liberty." Clarendon Press (1859).
