Status
Available
Call number
Genres
Collection
Publication
Gateway Edition (1955), Mass Market Paperback, 175 pages
Description
Philosophy. Politics. Nonfiction. HTML: At the time it was published in 1859, John Stuart Mill's On Liberty was a radical and controversial work; it argued for the right of individuals to possess freedom from the state in moral and economic matters. Mill declares that "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign", contrasting this with the "tyranny of the majority." He states that an individual can do anything they like as long as it doesn't harm another - the well-known "harm principle". On Liberty had a huge impact and has remained a relevant philosophical and political text today..
User reviews
LibraryThing member TadAD
After finishing this book, I'm of the opinion it should be required reading in high school. It is not that I agree with Mill on all points—I certainly don't—it's that he's asking the right questions. Essentially, he starts a discussion on what it means to be a citizen of a community and what it
Of course, he reaches certain conclusions: "…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." These conclusions can be attacked from both directions. From a more conservative position, one can question what appears to be his assumption that a society is nothing more than a collection of individuals, that no concept of shared values has a place in it. One might also question his delineations of "harm to others"…they seem somewhat shallow and limited to direct causality. From a more liberal position, one might take issue with his statements that backward societies should not enjoy full privileges because they are not "capable". One might question whether he is really trying to protect individuality or whether he is trying to protect the intellectual elite from the "despotism of collective mediocrity."
It does not matter. These questions are certainly as relevant today as they were just before the Civil War, and the attempt to answer them seems important to me.
Show More
means to be a just government. He highlights the often-overlooked distinction between the premise that, in a democracy, power should be in the hands of the majority and the very different premise that the majority, having that power, should be free to do as it chooses.Of course, he reaches certain conclusions: "…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." These conclusions can be attacked from both directions. From a more conservative position, one can question what appears to be his assumption that a society is nothing more than a collection of individuals, that no concept of shared values has a place in it. One might also question his delineations of "harm to others"…they seem somewhat shallow and limited to direct causality. From a more liberal position, one might take issue with his statements that backward societies should not enjoy full privileges because they are not "capable". One might question whether he is really trying to protect individuality or whether he is trying to protect the intellectual elite from the "despotism of collective mediocrity."
It does not matter. These questions are certainly as relevant today as they were just before the Civil War, and the attempt to answer them seems important to me.
Show Less
LibraryThing member TLCrawford
How did I get a college degree without reading this book? How did I even get a high school diploma? John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty”, written just before the US Civil War, is an amazing look at the concept of liberty, what we in the modern United States would call freedom. Although the book is
Mills’ believed that, as long an individual’s actions do not cause harm someone else, those individuals, those adult individuals, should be allowed to do whatever they please. His argument on the Temperance Movement of his era is directly applicable to the question of recreational drugs today, as are his comments on freedom of religion.
This book, along with Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” are the most important works I have read on the subject of freedom and the proper role of government, both are old enough that I doubt anyone could accuse the authors of these books of “partisan politics” unless, that is, they consider freedom and liberty of interest only the “other side”.
Show More
a century and a half old the language is only slightly dusty and the issues are depressingly current. What is the proper role of government, should women have rights equal to men, should majority opinion create rules for the minority?Mills’ believed that, as long an individual’s actions do not cause harm someone else, those individuals, those adult individuals, should be allowed to do whatever they please. His argument on the Temperance Movement of his era is directly applicable to the question of recreational drugs today, as are his comments on freedom of religion.
This book, along with Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” are the most important works I have read on the subject of freedom and the proper role of government, both are old enough that I doubt anyone could accuse the authors of these books of “partisan politics” unless, that is, they consider freedom and liberty of interest only the “other side”.
Show Less
LibraryThing member LisaMaria_C
This is a lucid, powerful, and extremely influential defense of individual liberty. It's short, too, less than 150 paperback pages, very accessible and worth knowing whatever your beliefs. After all, as Mill himself says, if something is true, we should learn it--if something is false, it can still
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.
For me so far, so good. I see two major problems with his arguments though, defects that are undermine the above. First, there is his insistence in grounding his argument on Utilitarianism:
It is proper to state that I forego any advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right, as a thing independent of utility. I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being.
And then Mill makes a curious move. He states his arguments don't apply to children that those "who are still in a state to require being taken care of by others, must be protected against their own actions as well as against external injury." Fair enough. But then he goes on to say that:
Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion.
That in my opinion is what always lets the tyrant in the door. It's for their own good! Wasn't after all that the argument for everything from black chattel slavery to colonialism? If you don't ground individual liberty as a right, then the argument can always be made that a individual person or even the majority of the people don't know their own good. Who is to say when humankind has reached the age of majority? And indeed you can see that in Mill's own evolution. In this essay he argues for the free market--but eventually would become a socialist. So...
Show More
illuminate truth through its errors. Although I think there are some fatal defects, I also find much that is persuasive and wise. I like his arguments for the utility of freedom of speech and opinion and the dangers of conformity. Mill states his object from the start: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.
For me so far, so good. I see two major problems with his arguments though, defects that are undermine the above. First, there is his insistence in grounding his argument on Utilitarianism:
It is proper to state that I forego any advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right, as a thing independent of utility. I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being.
And then Mill makes a curious move. He states his arguments don't apply to children that those "who are still in a state to require being taken care of by others, must be protected against their own actions as well as against external injury." Fair enough. But then he goes on to say that:
Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion.
That in my opinion is what always lets the tyrant in the door. It's for their own good! Wasn't after all that the argument for everything from black chattel slavery to colonialism? If you don't ground individual liberty as a right, then the argument can always be made that a individual person or even the majority of the people don't know their own good. Who is to say when humankind has reached the age of majority? And indeed you can see that in Mill's own evolution. In this essay he argues for the free market--but eventually would become a socialist. So...
Show Less
LibraryThing member argyriou
A classic exposition of the idea that man should generally be free of interference from the government except as needed to protect the liberty of others. It's written from a decidedly utilitarian perspective, making the conclusions both stronger and weaker - stronger because Mill shows that liberty
Show More
has significant practical advantages, but weaker because it places liberty as a good less valuable than other goods, and makes it difficult to defend liberty against the argument that some infringement on liberty will leave people "better off". Show Less
LibraryThing member the.ken.petersen
Wouldn't it be great if life were like these philosopher chappies thought? You know, one great idea; we all conform to it, and universal happiness is guaranteed! Mill, of course came up with the idea that individual liberty was that one concept. The only rider which he was willing to put upon
The best thing about this Pelican edition, is the forward which, gives the uninitiated, such as myself, a background to the writing thereof. The partial biography tells us that John Stuart never attended school, but was hothoused by his father, James, and Jeremy Bentham, to such an extent that JS was reading ancient Greek manuscripts at the age of three! Needless to say, such pressure caused the poor might to suffer a nervous breakdown and he eventually rebelled to the extent of a most curious affair at age 23 with a married woman, Harriet Taylor. When Mr Taylor turned up his heels (some twenty years later), they, eventually, wed and, whilst working together on several tracts, one of which was 'On Liberty', published nothing until such time as Mrs. Mill went to meet her first husband once more.
The biography certainly helps one to understand from whence came this seemingly simple and humanitarian philosophy and also gives an inkling as to why it, like all unidimensional solutions to the human state, is bound to disappoint its followers. This little book is a very readable insight into John Stuart's (and Harriet's) thinking. Fascinating, but I shall not become a devotee.
Show More
liberty, was that one's liberty must not harm another.The best thing about this Pelican edition, is the forward which, gives the uninitiated, such as myself, a background to the writing thereof. The partial biography tells us that John Stuart never attended school, but was hothoused by his father, James, and Jeremy Bentham, to such an extent that JS was reading ancient Greek manuscripts at the age of three! Needless to say, such pressure caused the poor might to suffer a nervous breakdown and he eventually rebelled to the extent of a most curious affair at age 23 with a married woman, Harriet Taylor. When Mr Taylor turned up his heels (some twenty years later), they, eventually, wed and, whilst working together on several tracts, one of which was 'On Liberty', published nothing until such time as Mrs. Mill went to meet her first husband once more.
The biography certainly helps one to understand from whence came this seemingly simple and humanitarian philosophy and also gives an inkling as to why it, like all unidimensional solutions to the human state, is bound to disappoint its followers. This little book is a very readable insight into John Stuart's (and Harriet's) thinking. Fascinating, but I shall not become a devotee.
Show Less
LibraryThing member jgreenia
The seminal work on utilitarianism by it's intellectual founder. JSM's take on macro and micro economics (as we know them now) is critical to understanding our freedoms as tied to a economized society.
A must read for all libertarians and socialists.
A must read for all libertarians and socialists.
LibraryThing member thenumeraltwo
A pleasingly readable philosophical pamphlet (using the Victorian definition of a 4-hour read). Mill is very English in his philosophy, arguing through example and refusing to follow his arguments _ad absurdium_. This has the effect of keeping the pace trotting along, but with the risk of raising
I was surprised to find the final chapter a treatise on small government. Knowing Mill as one of the authors of Utilitaniarism, and carrying my post 1970s tribal assumptions of Left/Right, I'd naturally expected an argument for liberty requiring the constraint of business. Mill, however, argues the opposite. I wonder if in the 21st Century with _de facto_ businesses as governments, he'd thread a more subtle needle. His suspicion of the National Curriculum get more positive support from me.
Show More
many unanswered questions. I was surprised to find the final chapter a treatise on small government. Knowing Mill as one of the authors of Utilitaniarism, and carrying my post 1970s tribal assumptions of Left/Right, I'd naturally expected an argument for liberty requiring the constraint of business. Mill, however, argues the opposite. I wonder if in the 21st Century with _de facto_ businesses as governments, he'd thread a more subtle needle. His suspicion of the National Curriculum get more positive support from me.
Show Less
LibraryThing member madepercy
Revisiting On Liberty was an interesting exercise. It is little wonder that it was, and, according to the introduction, is ever more so, a gospel for living as an individual. What was most challenging was to find that so much of my education has led me to read Mill as if it were gospel, agreeing at
Show More
every turn with almost everything. Its simplicity may be a reason for this, but it is also evident that a liberal education cannot be anything less than based on Mill's philosophy. Ideas affecting liberty, such as the after-hours lock-out laws in Sydney, are covered by Mill. Yet contemporary ideas of libertarianism seem to deny Mill's authority on the matter. But finding my own philosophy so closely aligned with Mill's is something worthy of further challenge and reflection. That this "little book" has since become a program for governments throughout the Anglo world appears to have reached its peak, with issues such as national security throwing into conflict the ideas of Hobbes and Mill on the nature of the "good society". Yet this gospel of the liberal tradition, in my mind, at least, wins again and again when read from the lofty heights of experience which I could neither conjure nor comprehend all those years ago. Mill really is the "godfather" of the liberal tradition and, like any gospel, rewards one with each subsequent reading. Show Less
LibraryThing member grayselegy
A must read for anybody interested in freedom of expression
LibraryThing member RonManners
"John Stuart Mill published his book, On Liberty, in I859
It contains a defense of the individual's right to think and act for himself. It says, by way of premise, that all human action should aim at creating, maintaining, and increasing the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people.
Mill's book is not a defense of irresponsibility. The phrase "think and act for yourself" does not mean "think and act as you please." It is a protest against external "authority." It is a protest against groups, governments, or institutions which would tell people what to think and what to do, refusing to leave them to work these things out for themselves. When people are so dealt with, they are deprived of individual responsibility for their beliefs and actions. Mill objects to this.
When Mill's point is stated thus simply and baldly, there is no need to argue its present relevance. It would seem to be even more timely than it was in 1859. "
Taken from the Introduction
It contains a defense of the individual's right to think and act for himself. It says, by way of premise, that all human action should aim at creating, maintaining, and increasing the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people.
Show More
Actions are right when they do that; wrong when they do not. A good society is one in which the greatest possible number of persons enjoy the greatest possible amount of happiness. It says, secondly, that one of the most important ways for society to ensure that its members will be able to contribute their maximum to creating, preserving, and increasing the greatest happiness of the greatest number is to extend to them the right to think and act for themselves.Mill's book is not a defense of irresponsibility. The phrase "think and act for yourself" does not mean "think and act as you please." It is a protest against external "authority." It is a protest against groups, governments, or institutions which would tell people what to think and what to do, refusing to leave them to work these things out for themselves. When people are so dealt with, they are deprived of individual responsibility for their beliefs and actions. Mill objects to this.
When Mill's point is stated thus simply and baldly, there is no need to argue its present relevance. It would seem to be even more timely than it was in 1859. "
Taken from the Introduction
Show Less
LibraryThing member jpsnow
A core writing about political philosophy, this is the one that, more than any other, activated my thinking about politics and freedom. Mill describes the object of his essay to be: "That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering
Show More
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." Show Less
LibraryThing member JBarringer
I liked this one, but it was not as profound or as memorable as my friends told me it was, so I was a bit disappointed. Reading this book was not particularly entertaining, but gave me some background for reading other, more modern arguments related to liberty and society.
LibraryThing member JBarringer
I liked this one, but it was not as profound or as memorable as my friends told me it was, so I was a bit disappointed. Reading this book was not particularly entertaining, but gave me some background for reading other, more modern arguments related to liberty and society.
LibraryThing member blake.rosser
Apart from the small print and huge paragraphs, this is a supremely readable and insightful tome of political philosophy. I can agree in general with his ideas, but in response to all of those free market neo-liberals worshipping at his feet I would point to page 80:
Whoever succeeds in an
That seems to succinctly condemn any of the hanky panky going on up there Wall Street-ward, and even allow for society (i.e. state) intervention to prevent it. Admittedly, it leaves the definition of "treachery" and "force" rather fuzzy.
I found deeply engaging his elegant conversation about freedom of opinion and expression in chapters 2 and 3. Among many memorable points, he proclaims the importance of keeping our beliefs alive and honed through honest and vigorous debate with opposing opinions. Also very interesting were his ideas about the school system in chapter 5. I´d be interested to hear what he had to say about universal health care.
Whoever succeeds in an
Show More
overcrowded profession, or in a competitive examination; whoever is preferred to another in any contest for an object which both desire, reaps benefit rom the loss of others, from their wasted exertion and their disappointment. But it is, by common admission, better for the general interest of mankind, that persons should pursue their objects undeterred by this sort of consequences. In other words, society admits no right, either legal or moral, in the disappointed competitors, to immunity from this kind of suffering; and feels called on to interfere, only when means of success have been employed which it is contrary to the general interest to permit -- namely, fraud or treachery, and force.That seems to succinctly condemn any of the hanky panky going on up there Wall Street-ward, and even allow for society (i.e. state) intervention to prevent it. Admittedly, it leaves the definition of "treachery" and "force" rather fuzzy.
I found deeply engaging his elegant conversation about freedom of opinion and expression in chapters 2 and 3. Among many memorable points, he proclaims the importance of keeping our beliefs alive and honed through honest and vigorous debate with opposing opinions. Also very interesting were his ideas about the school system in chapter 5. I´d be interested to hear what he had to say about universal health care.
Show Less
LibraryThing member steve02476
I usually have a difficult time reading books much over 100 years old, this was no exception. (first published in 1859) But I made my way through it; fortunately it’s pretty short. The accompanying essays were valuable. - I especially like Jeremy Waldron’s.
LibraryThing member jonfaith
Eccentricity has always abounded when and where strength of character has abounded; and the amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigor, and moral courage which it contained.
It would be pretentious to suggest I dedicated my reading to
It would be pretentious to suggest I dedicated my reading to
Show More
Ahmed Merabet, yet it would be untrue to exclaim otherwise. We've drowned in debate about liberty this last week. Somehow I regard that as most encouraging. I found Mill’s treatise riveting and incisive along a number of axes which inform our means of government and private life. Mill was a shrewd historian and a brilliant writer. I gasped audibly at his conclusions and deft references. Too often Utilitarianism is wedged into confined spaces for politically conservative purposes. I have no problem with that. I suspect J.S. Mill wouldn't either. His moral remains, we should all disagree, question custom and exercise our faculties at every turn. Show Less
LibraryThing member stargazerfish0
Read this for my ethics class. He's so close to getting it right for me-if only it wasn't for his conflicting faith in institutions. Also for all his talk of freedom, there's still some normative conditions involved.
Subjects
Awards
Language
Original publication date
1859
ISBN
none