On Liberty

What It's About

This short philosophical essay asks what power society may legitimately exercise over the individual. Mill's answer is that the only justification for interfering with a person's freedom, against their will, is to prevent harm to others. A person's own good, whether physical or moral, is not enough. He defends freedom of thought, discussion and conscience, and argues that people should be free to shape their own lives as long as they do not injure anyone else. The essay was written against the background of Victorian conformity and the growing weight of public opinion, which Mill saw as a threat to liberty as real as any tyrannical government.

Key Concepts

The central idea is the "harm principle", which separates actions that affect only the individual from those that affect others. Mill also warns against the "tyranny of the majority", the pressure of custom and public opinion that can stifle dissent as effectively as law. He gives several reasons for protecting free expression: an opinion we suppress may be true, a partly true opinion needs challenging to be completed, and even a true opinion becomes dead dogma if it is never questioned. Finally, he champions individuality and "experiments in living", arguing that human flourishing depends on variety and self-development rather than uniformity. Critics have long debated how clearly the harm principle can be applied, since few actions affect no one else. Others object to Mill's remarks excusing despotic rule over peoples he considered "backward", which sit uneasily with the rest of the essay.

About the Author

John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) was a British philosopher, political economist and social reformer, born in London. He received an intense, accelerated education from his father, the philosopher James Mill, and became one of the most influential liberal thinkers of the nineteenth century. A leading advocate of utilitarianism, he also served briefly as a Member of Parliament, where he campaigned for women's suffrage.