Mill On Liberty

On Liberty is one of Mill’s most famous works and remains the one most read today. In this book, Mill expounds his concept of individual freedom within the context of his ideas on history and the state. On Liberty depends on the idea that society progresses from lower to higher stages and that this progress culminates in the emergence of a system of representative democracy. It is within the context of this form of government that Mill envisions the growth and development of liberty.
Chapter I defines civil liberty as the limit that must be set on society’s power over each individual. Mill undertakes a historical review of the concept of liberty, beginning with ancient Greece and Rome and proceeding to England. In the past, liberty meant primarily
protection from tyranny. Over time, the meaning of liberty changed along with the role of rulers, who came to be seen as servants of the people rather than masters. This evolution brought about a new problem: the tyranny of the majority, in which a democratic majority forces its will on the minority. This state of affairs can exercise a tyrannical power even outside the political realm, when forces such as public opinion stifle individuality and rebellion. Here, society itself becomes the tyrant by seeking to inflict its will and values on others. Next, Mill observes that liberty can be divided into three types, each of which must be recognized and respected by any free society. First, there is the liberty of thought and opinion. The second type is the liberty of tastes and pursuits, or the freedom to plan our own lives. Third, there is the liberty to join other like-minded individuals for a common purpose that does not hurt anyone. Each of these freedoms negates society’s propensity to compel compliance.
Chapter II examines the question of whether one or more persons should be able to curtail another person’s freedom to express a divergent point of view. Mill argues that any such activity is illegitimate, no matter how beyond the pale that individual’s viewpoint may be. We must not silence any opinion, because such censorship is simply morally wrong. Mill points out that a viewpoint’s popularity does not necessarily make it correct—this fact is why we must allow freedom of opinion. Dissent is vital because it helps to preserve truth, since truth can easily become hidden in sources of prejudice and dead dogma. Mill defines dissent as the freedom of the individual to hold and articulate unpopular views.
Chapter III discusses whether people who hold unpopular views should be allowed to act on them without being made social outcasts or facing a legal penalty. Actions cannot be as free as ideas or viewpoints, and the law must limit all actions whose implementation would harm others or be an outright nuisance. He states that human beings are fallible, and therefore they need to experiment with different ways of living. However, individual liberty must always be expressed in order to achieve social and personal progress.
Chapter IV examines whether there are instances when society can legitimately limit individual liberty. Mill rejects the concept of the social contract, in which people agree to be a part of society and recognize that society can offer certain forms of protection while asking for certain forms of obligations. However, he does suggest that because society offers protection, people are obliged to behave in a certain way, and each member of society must defend and protect society and all its members from harm. In brief, society must be given power to curtail behavior that harms others, but no more.
Chapter V summarizes and elucidates Mill’s twofold argument. First, individuals are not accountable to society for behavior and actions that affect only them. Second, a person is answerable for any type of behavior or action that harms others, and in such cases it is the responsibility of society to punish and curtail such behavior and action. However, Mill does note that there are some types of actions that certainly harm others but bring a larger benefit to society, as when one person succeeds in business more than his rival. In the rest of the chapter, Mill examines particular examples of his doctrine.

Analysis
The key concept in On Liberty is the idea that liberty is essential to ensure subsequent progress, both of the individual and society, particularly when society becomes more important than the state. This state of affairs would be attained in a representative democracy in which the opposition between the rulers and the ruled disappears, in that the rulers only represent the interests of the ruled. Such a democracy would make the liberty of the individual possible, but it would not guarantee it. When society becomes free of the constraints of government, it begins to entrench the interests of a select and powerful few, which threatens individual liberty in a new way. Mill grapples with the problem of envisioning society progressing in such a way as to prevent the repression of the individual by the ever more powerful and confident majority. Social progress can only take place if limits are placed on individual liberty, but it also necessitates the freeing of the individual from such limits.
Mill sidesteps this dilemma by delving into moral theory, where the only important thing is the happiness of the individual, and such happiness may only be attained in a civilized society, in which people are free to engage in their own interests, with all their skills and capabilities, which they have developed and honed in a good system of education. Thus, Mill stresses the fundamental value of individuality, of personal development, both for the individual and society for future progress. For Mill, a civilized person is the one who acts on what he or she understands and who does everything in his or her power to understand. Mill holds this model out to all people, not just the specially gifted, and advocates individual initiative over social control. He asserts that things done by individuals are done better than those done by governments. Moreover, individual action advances the mental education of that individual, something that government action cannot ever do, for government action always poses a threat to liberty and must be carefully watched.

Summary
The Meditator reflects that he has often found himself to be mistaken with regard to matters that he formerly thought were certain, and resolves to sweep away all his pre-conceptions, rebuilding his knowledge from the ground up, and accepting as true only those claims which are absolutely certain. All he had previously thought he knew came to him through the senses. Through a process of methodological doubt, he withdraws completely from the senses. At any moment he could be dreaming, or his senses could be deceived either by God or by some evil demon, so he concludes that he cannot trust his senses about anything.
Ultimately, however, he realizes that he cannot doubt his own existence. In order to doubt or to think, there must be someone doing the doubting or thinking. Deceived as he may be about other things, he cannot help but conclude that he exists. Since his existence follows from the fact that he is thinking, he concludes that he knows at least that he is a thing that thinks. He further reasons that he comes to know this fact by means of his intellect, and that the mind is far better known to him than the body.
The Meditator's certainty as to his own existence comes through a clear and distinct perception. He wonders what else he might be able to know by means of this sure method. In order to be certain that his clear and distinct perceptions are indubitable, however, he first needs to assure himself that God exists and is not deceiving him. He reasons that the idea of God in his mind cannot be created by him since it is far more perfect than he is. Only a being as perfect as God could cause an idea so perfect. Thus, the Meditator concludes, God does exist. And because he is perfect, he would not deceive the Meditator about anything. Error arises not because the Meditator is deceived but because the will often passes judgment on matters that the limited intellect does not understand clearly and distinctly.
Secure in the knowledge that his clear and distinct perceptions are guaranteed by God, the Meditator investigates material things. He clearly and distinctly perceives that the primary attribute of body is extension and that the primary qualities of body are size, shape, breadth, etc. He also derives a second proof for the existence of God from the fact that, while bodies are essentially extended, God is essentially existent. A God that does not exist is as inconceivable as a body that is not extended.
Because the essence of body is extension and the essence of mind is thought, the Meditator concludes that the two are completely distinct. He decides also that while he can clearly and distinctly perceive the primary qualities of material things, he has only a confused and obscure perception of secondary qualities. This is because the senses are meant to help him get around in the world, not to lead him to the truth.

The Meditations are generally considered the starting point of modern Western philosophy, and with good reason.
In this one brief text, Descartes turns many Aristotelian doctrines upside down and frames many of the questions that are still being debated in philosophy today. Among other things, Descartes breaks down the Aristotelian notion that all knowledge comes via the senses and that mental states must in some way resemble what they are about. In so doing, he develops an entirely new conception of mind, matter, ideas, and a great deal else besides.
We might understand the philosophical outlook that Descartes develops to be marked and defined by the skepticism he employs in the First Meditation. He begins by asking how he can be certain of anything and then develops all sorts of inventive and outlandish reasons as to why he ought to mistrust his senses. Philosophy ever since has been marked a constant skepticism toward knowledge claims, and the very question of how we can come to know anything with certainty has been much
debated.
Skepticism also informs the mind-body problem which has come to define our conception of the human mind.
Descartes develops a conception of the mind where the senses and the imagination are also mental faculties. Further, he argues that we are essentially thinking things that can know our minds clearly and distinctly, but must work much harder to come to an understanding of our bodies. Most important, he draws a very sharp distinction between mind and body. Mind is essentially thinking and body is essentially extended, so the two have nothing at all in common. Ever since, philosophers have striven to understand how mind and body can interact and relate with one another.
Skepticism and mind-body dualism have combined to create an understanding of the human mind as being locked away inside a body and separated off from the world. How this mind can come to know anything at all about the world is a mystery, and the certainty of this knowledge is sharply questioned. This conception of mind is so natural to us that it is sometimes difficult to understand that the pre- Cartesian world had a far less skeptical outlook toward knowledge and sensory
perception.
Descartes locates himself firmly in the rationalist camp, as opposed to the empiricism of Aristotle or his contemporary, John Locke. He constantly asserts that the clear and distinct perceptions of the intellect are the only sure means of securing knowledge, and ultimately concludes that the senses are not designed to give us knowledge at all, but are rather meant to help us move through the world in a very practical way.
While we can trace Descartes' tremendous importance and influence to the development of mind-body dualism and modern skepticism, he has also provided a number of other seeds for debate. The Cartesian Circle, the Wax Argument, and Descartes' theories of ideas, of body, and of perception are all important matters for discussion. His proofs for the existence of God, however, are not original, nor are they very successful. Descartes makes a fascinating subject for study since we can see a modern worldview emerging as he writes.