In his essay, about freedom, John Stuart Mill discusses what he believes to be the greatest obstacle to individuality: the tyranny of the majority (Mill 7). This tyranny of the majority is the ability of society to imprint its own beliefs and values on other members of society who do not voluntarily adhere to these beliefs, but instead are forced into this acquiescence (Mill 7). Mill claims that this compulsion to conform to public opinion prevents the development of individuality within the community (Mill 7). In discussing it, Mill explains his conception of the characteristics of individuality and the role of individuals in society.
Mill affirms that the goal of the ideal individual is to continually strive for the full development of his faculties (Mill 66). This development includes all kinds of knowledge; a true individual does not specialize in just one area. To obtain this full development, the individual must have freedom and exposure to diversity (Mill 66). In the absence of freedom and diversity, there can be no development of the individuality of the person.
An individual will not blindly accept the customs and beliefs of past and present societies. Instead, he or she will examine the customs and traditions of other people to decide the applicability of those customs to himself. His decision must be based on reason, and not on coercion to accept current customs. The individual will reject those customs that he or she is not willing to embrace (Mill 67). A person who conforms to custom simply because everyone else does is not making the most of his or her faculties of reason and judgment (Mill 68).
Once a person has examined all aspects of an issue and has made a decision, based on reason, as to which side agrees more with their own situation, they must act on their opinions (Mill 23). This acting on opinions includes establishing what way of life is best for him or her, and engaging in free discussion about her opinions. An ideal individual recognizes that his views may be fallible and therefore seeks out people who hold opposing views to continually test the truth of his own view.
In these discussions, the individual does not seek to rashly disregard his opponent’s arguments, but rather maintains an open mind. He listens carefully to arguments against his own opinion and those in favor of his opponent’s opinion. An individual must understand both or all sides of an opinion to fully understand his own opinion. This is the only way an individual will get any closer to the truth of his opinion (Mill 25).
By keeping an open mind regarding dissenting opinions, the individual constantly tests the truth of his own opinions and beliefs, and makes additions or adjustments to the opinion when reason has shown that changes are necessary (Mill 26). An ideal individual knows that what is claimed to be true is not infallible and that what is accepted today may be rejected tomorrow. An individual also realizes that an opinion does not contain the whole truth, but usually does have some element of truth. The individual works to reconcile the two opinions that have elements of truth into a consistent whole (Mill 53). Therefore, open-mindedness and the willingness to change are crucial for development.
In addition to testing one’s opinions, public discussion is imperative for the development of individuality, for if there were no discussion, people would forget the reasons why they hold those opinions (Mill 46). Mill claims that when an opinion has become established among many people, if not the majority of society, then the opinion tends to boil down to a “hereditary creed” (Mill 47). This creed is passed on to others in a passive way who do not prove the validity of the creed “from personal experience” (Mill 47). The person who accepts these beliefs without question can never become an individual. When controversy over a particular belief and discussion of that belief ceases, Mill asserts that “the living power of doctrine” begins to wane (Mill 46). When a person does not understand the reasons behind the doctrine, the doctrine exists in the person’s mind as “dead beliefs” (Mill 47).
Another important reason for allowing discussion is that no matter how widely an opinion is accepted as true, there is still the possibility of its fallibility. By suppressing dissenting views, humanity risks making a mistake that succeeding generations will view with “astonishment and horror” (Mill 29). To illustrate this point, Mill offers the experiences of two historical figures: Socrates and Jesus. Both men deviated from the widely accepted customs and beliefs of their day, and both suffered persecution for their beliefs, resulting in their execution (Mill 29-30).
Although both the doctrine of Socrates and that of Jesus survived to be passed on to subsequent generations, Mill disagrees that truths will always survive persecution (Mill 33). He argues that the reason Christianity survived its early years was that the persecution of its adherents was “only occasional” and “lasting for a short time” (Mill 34). Mill acknowledges that dissidents are no longer executed, but maintains that they still face persecution. In Mill society, dissenters are commonly labeled “bad and immoral men” (Mill 62).
This “unconscionable vilification” of majority opinion causes people to refrain from expressing their beliefs that differ from the usual ones (Mill 62). When an opinion is not expressed, Mill claims that this is “robbing the human race” of the opportunity to discover its own truth (Mill 21). For these reasons, Mill believes that views dissenting from majority opinion should never be suppressed.
In addition to holding and discussing their own opinions, people must have the freedom to act on those opinions, for example by choosing the type of life that works best for them (Mill 68). Mill asserts that “while humanity is imperfect,” we need to have “different life experiences” as well as diversity of opinion (Mill 65). However, Mill realizes that actions cannot be as free as opinions, if they cause harm to others (Mill 64). In asserting their individuality, people should not say or do things that might infringe on another person’s rights or encourage others to infringe on those rights (Mill 64). To take a modern example, people have the right to protest abortion in front of an abortion clinic, but they do not have the right to stop people from entering that clinic.
Possibly one of the most important attributes of an individual is the realization that he or she does not have the authority to impose their own beliefs on others who do not want them. The individual can and should share his views with others, and may try to persuade others to side with him, but there is never any justification for forcing others to accept them, either through legal prosecution. or social condemnation. Mill argues that when a society is uniform, there can be no improvement between individuals or society as a whole (Mill 85). Only through diversity and the exchange of opinions can a society continue to move towards the ideal.
Bibliography
Mill, John Stuart. About Freedom. Dover Publications, 2002.