Ethically Yours

Some semi-random thoughts on John Stuart Mill

Tyranny

There is both “tyranny of the majority” (either through legal democracies imposing restriction upon individuals who do not wish to conform, or through social pressures and opinions) and a tyranny of the minority (either legally through a constitutional republic or an accumulation of wealth, power, influence, etc.)  In his work On Liberty and The Subjugation of Women he speaks more of these issues.  Historically the world was ruled by a minority or minorities in power, e.g., the Catholic church when it had the power to overturn kings, steal land, wage wars and wholesale slaughter.  Or we might look at various Noble Houses in European countries.  Definitely a tyranny of the wealthy and powerful…sometimes as a majority, sometimes as a minority. 

What we are looking at with Mill’s tyranny of the majority is, in his time, a relevantly new phenomenon of freedom of speech, press, etc.  On one hand this was an incredible event, not seen in almost 1800 years.  (You mean I won’t have my head chopped off for saying the King made a stupid decision?  You mean I won’t be thrown in jail or burned as a heretic for saying that the church should let us read the bible on our own?)  Mill’s fear, in incredible foresight, is that public opinion will itself start to take on a sort of "censorship" towards the minority who questions beliefs, tries to be creative, does not want to conform to the status quo.  Consider how these quotes could apply even today: 

Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.

The Harm Principle

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

Mill is a great champion of individuality, creativity, and nonconformity.  He claims people have a right to experiment with living until their actions/or inactions cause harm on others.  Experimenting with living, he claims, is the only way we can figure out how to avoid pain and suffering and find true happiness.  I sometimes wonder what he would think of mass media, popular culture, and other activities which break down or make it difficult to sustain individuality. 

Notice how much of college emphasizes trying out new experiences…take different classes while you have a chance, meet new people you would not normally talk to, try out different physical activities, etc.  Learn to recognize how you are being manipulated by various special interests groups.  Learn to think critically, to question, to explore.  All of this is very Millian as they represent a series of "mini-experiments of living."