‘On Liberty’ by Mill - a must read for today’s no platformists

thoughts on ‘On Liberty’ by John Stuart Mill

In the first chapter Mill makes it clear that ‘the subject of [his] essay is the […] civil, or social liberty’ and that he will be addressing the liberty of authority rather that internal individual liberty.

He first explains how the definition of liberty has changed over time and how the role of Liberty in governing has altered with different bodies of authority. Overall, the main message I read from the essay was that the majority have no right to silence dissentient thoughts because they could be right rather than the people in the majority. Mill further states that the masses cannot impose their beliefs on the individual or encroach on his right to develop his individual character through pressure. This makes Mills work very relative to todays society as social media has been able to create a mainstream beauty standard and other such standards such as standards of what makes someone moral and a good person, what actions make someone worthy of praise and so on and so forth. This global circulation of filtered (excuse the pun) ideals makes Mill’s essay so important to us today and I believe teenagers may benefit from reading it as Mill’s powerful encouragement to be a ‘dissentient champion’ is caustic in opposition to the narrow and limiting ideals instagram for example pushes onto them.

Additionally, Mill praises a conflict and debate of ideas because he explains it adds to the validity of the beliefs held – which can be compared to the Socratic method or the method of scientific hypothesis. However, as a modern reader of the text it is hard to see that message of the essay as tangible and realistic. Due to the way society has progressed and become so intertwined, I would hypotheses that it is impossible to entirely removed the pressure of the majority to think certain things. Mill specifies that there should be ‘protection [..] against the tranny of the prevailing opinion.’ However, this maxim is unpractical because in the generation of social media widely accepted and praised opinions have become woven into the nature ‘fact’. Mill acknowledges that societal influences are ‘continually mistaken for […] first [nature],’ but the problem that this has resulted in is that it has now become impossible to distinguish the majorities influence on individuals opinions. You must ask yourself: "do I believe X because it is what I believe or is it that I believe X because it has been accepted for so many years and all my peers also accept X ?” Even having asked this of yourself one must wonder whether thought could ever truly be free in an age of mass media influence?

Is Mill’s argument that dissentient thought should not be silenced exercised in British education today?

His argument proves timeless and has never been more resonate with society than noe due to cancel culture, hate speech and no platforming of controversies. However, the concern that this imposition and censorship is essential to the maintenance of order?

Mill states that ‘over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.’ However, I believe that in modern Britain , individuals are conditioned by culture and through the education system to believe and disbelieve certain things. I believe Mill’s argument can be criticised as unrealistic. Indirect pressures cannot be stopped and will subconsciously work on the development of ideas in the individual's mind and even if the hearing and discussing of dissentient opinion is embraced and no one claims that they are right absolutely, it is inherent that human beings follow the majority because they are social and pack animals and by nature side with the side that people like them agree with.

However, the genius of Mill mist be acknowledged, his ideas were beyond his time and to an extent still contribute to society by forming the basis for freedom of opinion and freedom of speech. We owe a proportion of our ability to believe and follow any religion that we desire to follow to Mill’s work in ‘On Liberty.’ As a result of his great strides towards the liberation of thought and unchaining thought from what the government forcibly imposed in people to believe. It goes without saying that ‘On Liberty’ has been profoundly influential work of political philosophy and has benefited every individual living in modern Briton, contributing to the multicultural and cosmopolitan society the British are so proud of. Albeit, it is important to recognise this principle has gone as far as it can go, as the introduction of social media has widely mingled the opinions of the majority and actual facts and this has irrevocably made the tyranny of the majority and their opinions, almost globally second nature to individuals.

Part 2 of analysis on ‘On Liberty’

Mill admits that ‘no one pretends that actions should be as free as speech,’ and that freedom must be cut off when it brings harm to others in society. However, this creates a dilemma. For example, if one person's opinion and speech hurt the feelings of another should that person hurting the other be silenced and cancelled if not then why should racist speech be canceled? Is it because we as a society distinguish between hate speech and unkind speech with preferences?

It appears that we don’t hold Mill’s maxims universally and consistently, as we choose to let speech that might offend and upset certain professions or genders even thought that it may harm the feelings of some people, but we would never dream of letting racist speech slide. Both scenarios harm and offend some people, the only explanation for this inconstant application of free speech principle is that we discriminate between hate speech and unkind and harming speech is that we base it on preferences of the majority and what the majority thinks is politically correct.

Mill predicts cancel culture and the imposition of political correctness in ‘everyone lives as under the eye of hostile and dreaded censorship.’ If we prevent people from speaking their opinion on things as horrifying to hear as it will harm the feelings of many people, then surely, we would have to protect the whole of society from hearing things that could hurt their feelings and harm them such as making ‘fat-shaming’ hate speech and saying things like ‘ people who have big noses are ugly and I don’t want them to talk to me’ also hate speech because that also hurts and harms the feeling of a group of people. Why is there this inconstancy? Even if a person has objectively a ‘malady of thought’ should they not be entitled to voice that and for their opinion to be challenged? Is this not what Mill instructs society to do in ‘On Liberty?’ However, actions are a completely different territory. Acting freely should be restricted if the action harms others, this maxim is completely indiscriminate and consistent and therefore I can make no criticism.

Mill was undoubtedly beyond his time to set out what is known as the harm principle and encourage freedom of speech. Upon closer inspection it raises questions about cancel culture and exposes the inconsistency of law. ‘On Liberty’ raises questions about social media, the education system and political correctness. Mill’s reputation as a genius doesn’t even begin to do him justice. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in studying law, Philosophy and human rights.

In a time of no platforming Mills ‘On Liberty’ is a book I would encourage everyone to pick up and meditate on.

*Disclaimer:  This essay is not meant to cause any offence to any group of people or person. If this article has offended please feel free to get in touch with the SabetiForum.