used above and consider social and economic phenomena such as wealth distribution
or unemployment it can be difficult directly to attribute a person’s situation – being
rich or poor, in or out of work – to the actions of others. This is a problem to
which we return in Chapters 3 (Equality) and 4 (Justice).Mill on freedom
Mill’s essay On Libertyhas been hugely influential in discussions of political
freedom. As well as being important in its own right it also provides the framework
for a broader discussion of freedom: it is through that framework that we can
explore alternatives to Mill.
On Libertyhas to be located in Mill’s broader philosophical project: grounding
political principles in a utilitarian moral theory. Utilitarianism is a form of
consequentialism, meaning that we assess the validity of political principles or
institutions by the extent to which they bring about good consequences. In Mill’s
words:
Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in
proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce
the reverse of happiness.
By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness,
pain, and the privation of pleasure.
(Mill, 1991: 137)
Mill’s definition of ‘utility’ is ambiguous, for pleasure and happiness are not
identical. Elsewhere he contrasts satisfaction and happiness: ‘better to be a human
dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied’
(Mill, 1991: 140). Underpinning this distinction is a concern with quality as well
as quantity. The quality/quantity distinction and the idea of maximisation generates
problems for Mill’s defence of freedom. The underlying justification for freedom is
that it is the means by which the Greatest Happiness Principle is most effectively
advanced, but this is an empirical claim: what if freedom were shown to make
people unhappy? Would that not justify restricting freedom? Furthermore, if it is a
certain kind of pleasure that matters – the ‘higher pleasures’ – then why not force
people to cultivate those pleasures? These problems become more acute if we
interpret Mill as primarily a theorist of negative liberty – although as we will see
there is also a positive conception of liberty present in his work. His statement of
negative liberty is encapsulated in his famous ‘harm principle’:
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.... 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.
His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.
(Mill, 1991: 14)
Mill goes on to clarify to whom the harm principle applies. A number of points of
clarification can be made about the harm principle (we will address criticisms later):
Chapter 2 Freedom 39