How much power should the governing have over the governed? “On Liberty” - Critical Analysis Concepts in Political Science - Assignment 1 Nandan Sawant - JDSOLA B016 __________________________________________________ Mill makes it clear in the very first line of the reading that his paper is not about the Liberty of Will, but Civil Liberty. This refers to the rights and privileges of an individual that the governing power recognises. His arguments surround a very significant question; To what extent do governments have the right to exercise control over an individual? According to him, this question is not a new one but one that has divided mankind from ancient times, and the importance of this question will only increase as society progresses further. The text also discusses how the meaning of the term ‘Liberty’ has changed over time with changes in societal power structures. One of the first arguments Mill makes is that ‘self-government’ combats the problem of despotism by the authority, but brings up another very real issue; tyranny of the majority. In the earlier times, governments were mostly autocracies, which meant that the power was focused in the hands of one person. This one person was the supreme authority and they were seen as a necessary evil. The power of this supreme leader was necessary in order to protect his or her people from foreign powers, and also to protect the weaker sections of society from the relatively stronger ones who could oppress or trouble them. The ruler acted like the biggest fish in the sea who is feared by all the other fishes, who can protect the smallest fishes from the clutches of the bigger fishes. But the biggest fish could very much use its power to oppress all the other fishes. This is what came to be known as tyranny of rulers. As humanity progressed further, it realised that the interests of the governing power do not have to be separate from that of the governed, it would be more beneficial if the two aligned. A new system of government came into picture, where the government is chosen by the people. But the privileged or the majority in the society had a louder voice and this led to the oppression of the minorities. We can see examples of this even today all over the world. In India, we see systemic oppression of lower castes and other religious minorities, simply because the majority has a louder voice in the ‘democratic processes’ of the country. Furthermore, tyranny of the majority is also significantly prevalent in the socio-cultural sphere. The majority in a society very often imposes its culture, views and opinions on minorities that may not hold the same beliefs as them. These ‘social laws’ do not have the same legitimacy as the laws set up by the government, therefore they can’t be enforced legally. Individuals or communities that do not conform to these unwritten laws are often ridiculed and shamed, and subject to criticism and ostracism. This gives rise to conformity, and poses a threat to the individuality and autonomy of minorities. For example, homosexuality is not criminalised in Turkey, however there is widespread stigma surrounding it and a majority of the society, having conservative beliefs, does not accept it. This leads to LGBTQ+ persons, who are a minority in the country, facing social challenges such as ridicule and isolation. Similarly, in a hypothetical country where one religion is dominant, that religion could greatly influence the social sphere of that country, and would shape the foundation of the social moral code that the people are expected to adhere to. The majority would essentially be imposing their way of life, their religion, on the minority, who may not follow the same, but the majority may deem it to be the only right way of life, and would subject an individual to social humiliation if they refuse to accept it. Mill argues that such social pressure has adverse effects on society; it is harmful to individual liberty as it restricts individuals from choosing their own path of life without any external factors influencing it. An open and tolerant society is essential to promote diversity and individuality. Furthermore, Mill also highlights the importance of freedom of speech and how obstructing it seriously hinders the growth and progress of society. Before the 16th century, it was a widely accepted claim that the Earth was the centre of the universe and the sun and everything else revolved around it. Nicolaus Copernicus was the first person to talk about an astronomical model where the Earth, along with other planets, revolved around the Sun. This was an unpopular claim and was faced with heavy backflash and criticism from the Protestant Church, which considered it to be misinformation and blasphemy. The public believed that what they knew about the universe was true and they refused to accept any new theory. It took over another year for Copernicus’ astronomical model to gain acceptance. This example perfectly demonstrates how when we obstruct the freedom of speech of even one person, we risk straying from the truth. This is why all opinions, beliefs and claims, no matter how unpopular or offensive, should be allowed to be expressed, because they might give us useful insights or knowledge which can prove essential for the discovery of new ideas or even the progress of society as a whole. It is equally evil for the entire world to suppress one person’s free speech as it is for one person to suppress the entire world’s free speech, because both are a violation of liberty. Moral Philosophy and Ethics are a key aspect of Mill’s arguments, and it is most prominent when he talks about the Harm Principle. Essentially, he argues that any action that does not cause harm to others should not be punished, as it only concerns the individual and no one else. Use of drugs is an excellent example of such a ‘self-regarding action’. If we’re talking about dealing or distributing substances, the action concerns others and can potentially cause harm to others. But when an individual consumes certain illegal drugs, they are basically harming no one but themselves. It is fundamentally a matter of personal liberty, so it can be argued that punishment in such cases is not justified. However, Joel Feinberg in his book ‘Harm to Others’ argues that the Harm Principle is too vague and incomplete to serve as a framework for criminal law in the real world. "The 'harm principle' is so vague and indeterminate, and the conception of 'harm' that it invokes so protean, that its invocation provides little guidance for public policy, little direction for the lawmaker, and few clues for the administrator of common law." (Feinberg, 1990). The Harm Principle does not take into account the fact that harm is not always direct or immediate. Use of certain drugs can impair an individual’s ability to make rational decisions and ultimately cause harm to others. Taking another example; smoking may seem like a self-regarding act that only harms the person committing it, but when we take into consideration second hand smoking, and the health implications it has for ‘passive smokers’ or persons who are simply in close proximity to the smoker, we can see how it harms others. Furthermore, harm is not always quantifiable; loud music at public parties late at night might not seem to harm others in a physical, emotional or financial way, but it can affect their quality of life in the sense that it can cause disturbance, irritation or inconvenience. Additionally, governments often find it essential to punish certain self-regarding acts for public health and safety reasons. Individuals may often lose control of their consumption habits when it comes to certain substances, and this can adversely affect their own health. Authorities find it appropriate to intervene in such cases where they believe that an individual’s liberty must be infringed for their own well-being. In some other cases, such restrictions result from the government adopting the popular morality in the society, which may deem some self-regarding actions as inappropriate in a number of ways, for example, public indecency in respect to show of affection. Here again, as mentioned previously in this essay, we can see the majority or the privileged imposing its own way of life on others. ‘How much power should the government have to control an individual’s action that only leads to themself being harmed, and no one else?’ This ethical debate has significantly influenced the framing of various legislations all over the world. ‘On Liberty’ emphasises the need to limit the power of the state over its people through various constitutional protections for the rights and liberties of the people. The government’s scope should be restricted to essential functions and it should not interfere in the personal lives of its people. Moreover, there should be a separation of power among the three branches of the government, the legislative, which is responsible for making laws, the executive, responsible for enforcing laws, and finally the judiciary, which does the function of interpreting and applying laws. This makes sure that no one section of the government has too much power over its citizens, Limiting the power of the government over individuals is essential to avoid despotism or tyranny by the governing authority and promote individual liberty, diversity and inclusiveness, self-expression and a free flow of new perspectives and ideas. All of these factors are essential for improving the quality of life of people and ensuring human development and progress of society as a whole. Bibliography ‘On Liberty’ - John Stuart Mill https://www.equaldex.com/region/turkey https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OrbitsHistory#:~:text=In%201543%2C%20Nicola us%20Copernicus%20detailed,century%20to%20become%20widely%20accepted. https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-the-harm-principle/ Works Cited Feinberg, J. (1990). Harm to others. Oxford Univ. Press.
