The Principle of Self-Protection - Mill - Essay Example

?I. What is the principle that Mill asserts and which area of life is it supposed to govern? John Stuart Mill expressly declares in his essay that heis asserting on the principle of self-preservation as the one and only reason for disturbing the peace and liberty of another. He stresses in no uncertain terms that in any civilized society, citizens must live and let live. Insofar as a mature and capacitated individual is concerned, he has absolute freedom over his own life. Nobody has valid reasons to interfere with his decisions on what to do with his own body and what to do with his own life on the condition that these decisions must affect only himself and nobody else. However, when an individual’s action causes or is believed to cause harm unto others, then his absolute freedom ends. His right to total independence ends where the right of others to the same kind of liberty begins. The very moment an individual crosses the line that separates him from others, he loses his absolute liberty and must now comply with the rules and regulations imposed by society so that that all persons with liberty and freedom of thought and action may co-exist peacefully. These rules that prohibit certain actions or compel an individual to conduct himself within the prescribed manner are created not to interfere and diminish his liberties but to ensure that an individual, in the exercise of his liberties, does not cause harm unto others. Aptly, the principle of self-protection shall only be applicable to matters which involve the society and the individual. Society may only forbid or coerce an individual if the reason is to prevent him from harming others and nothing else. II. Mill cites other reasons to remonstrate, or reason, with someone that do not justify com­pelling him. What are these? Under the principle of self-protection, the one and only reason to compel and control an individual against his will is to prevent him from causing harm unto others. Within this context, any attempt to interfere with his liberties that does not meet this condition is unjustified. However, governments, and in some cases meddlesome neighbors and friends, are more inclined to impose control on an individual’s liberties rather than to just let them be. In the guise of one’s own good, rules that restrain or compel certain actions are created. These rules, according to John Stuart Mill are reasons to remonstrate an individual but do not justify compulsion. At most, other may only argue, persuade or plead with him to heed their advice but in no way shall he be compelled and coerced to obey. By the same breath, compelling a person to give up his absolute liberty over his own self on the argument that it is the right thing for him to do is also unjustified and does not merit obedience. Neither does an individual’s own happiness nor his own well-being serve as valid grounds that justify compulsion. Society may not impose its opinion on very subjective matters such as happiness and comfort upon an individual and in the process infringe upon his right to absolute liberty insofar as his own life is concerned. The key phrase here, therefore, is harm to others. For as long as a person does not and is not going to harm others, then the most that others can do is remonstrate with him but can never justifiably compel him. III. Are there any positive actions that benefit others that Mill thinks the state can at least sometimes compel us to do? The general rule is that a person may only be restrained or compelled for the sole purpose of preventing him from committing harm unto others. However, this rule is not absolute. John Stuart Mill recognizes some exception to the principle of self-protection. These exceptions exist on the basis that a person’s failure or refusal to act when it is his duty to do so may also be the cause of harm unto others. Actually, we can also take it as just a restatement of the general rule. To prevent harm and to benefit others in society, a person may be compelled to do certain acts even if it is against his will. It bears stressing that the positive benefit to others being mentioned here is not the same as the reasons for remonstration that does not justify compulsion. Here, we are talking of the common good of society as a one whole entity. The common good is deemed to be far more superior than the good of a single individual. Hence, Mill provided the exceptions to the rule. There were several examples enumerated by Mill in his essay, On Liberty. Among the positive acts that may be compelled from an individual because it redounds to the benefit of others are the duty to stand as witness and provide evidence in a case being heard by a duly constituted court of justice, the duty to defend one’s society and government from threats from both external and internal aggressors, and to do certain benevolent acts like saving the life of another person, for instance. For all these situations, a person may be justifiably compelled to do certain acts without infringing on his rights and liberties. IV. What three kinds of liberties does he believe should be protected? John Stuart Mill believes that there are three kinds of liberties that should be protected to ensure not only the liberty of an individual but the freedom of society as a whole. The three kinds of liberties are the liberty of conscience, the liberty of pursuits and the liberty of organization. Firstly, the liberty of conscience refers both to our conscious and subconscious selves. Within this broad category is the liberty of thought which for Mill is the most important of all individual liberties. Corollary to this liberty is the freedom to form an opinion and personal views on any matter and its concomitant freedom to express and make public these opinions. Moreover, another very important liberty that is worthy of protection is the liberty of feelings. The freedom to develop a personal sentiment on anyone and anything needs protection for as long as it does not affect his judgment on how to properly conduct himself in public to avoid causing harm to others. Secondly, the liberty of pursuits refers to the acts of creating a plan of action on how to live one’s life as he sees fit according to his own character. He may make a hero or fool of himself but no one has the legal and moral authority to compel him when no one is being harmed in the process. Finally, the liberty of organization refers to one’s freedom to join or not to join groups and associations except when the group’s purpose is to bring harm to others. V. How do these views of Mill relate to his emphasis on utility? For John Stuart Mill, who believes in the philosophy of utilitarianism, all questions on ethics and such abstract concepts as rights and liberties need to be evaluated in the light of utility in the truest and largest sense of the word. The benefit and security of society is paramount to the absolute liberties of individuals. Whenever there are any attempts to limit one’s absolute freedom, the test of propriety and justness is the harm that it may cause or the benefits that it may give unto others. The more there are other people who stand to be harmed or benefited out of one’s actions or inactions, the more compulsory it becomes. Mill never fails to emphasize the doctrine of utilitarianism throughout his essay such that it becomes the central theme that binds his arguments on liberties of a person and of a society. Whenever the interests of the greater majority are involved, society is justified in imposing controls and limitations on individual liberties. But when the only person who may be affected either positively or negatively, is the individual himself, then society or any concerned onlooker for that matter has no legal or moral authority whatsoever to prevent or coerce him into performing acts that are against his will. True to his utilitarian ideals, Mill has so persuasively argued that the principle of self-protection may only be invoked as a reason to compel a person to do certain acts when there is a threat of harm to others, more so when more people stand to be affected by the action or inaction. Read More