On Liberty is an essay written by the English philosophers Harriet Taylor Mill and John Stuart Mill and published in 1859 under the latter's name. It applied their ethical system of utilitarianism to society and state. The Mills suggested standards for the relationship between authority and liberty. They emphasized the importance of individuality, which they considered a prerequisite to the higher pleasures—the summum bonum of utilitarianism. Furthermore, the Mills asserted that democratic ideals may result in the tyranny of the majority. Among the standards proposed are the Mills' three basic liberties of individuals, their three legitimate objections to government intervention, and their two maxims regarding the relationship of the individual to society.
On Liberty was a greatly influential and well-received work. Some classical liberals and libertarians have criticized it for its apparent discontinuity with Utilitarianism, and vagueness in defining the arena within which individuals can contest government infringements on their personal freedom of action. The ideas presented in On Liberty have remained the basis of much political thought. It has remained in print since its initial publication.
Composition According to John Stuart Mill's autobiography, On Liberty was first conceived as a short essay in 1854. As the ideas developed, the essay was expanded, rewritten and "sedulously" corrected jointly by the married couple. After suffering a mental breakdown and eventually meeting and subsequently marrying Harriet, Mill had changed many of his beliefs on moral life and women's rights. Mill states that On Liberty "was more directly and literally our joint production than anything else which bears my name."
The final draft was nearly complete when Harriet died suddenly in 1858.Mill "Autobiography" 1873Wilson 2007, section: Life Mill suggests that he made no alterations to the text at this point and that one of his first acts after her death was to publish it, under his name alone, and to "consecrate it to her memory." The book and its ideas have historically been attributed to J.S. Mill alone, and political philosophers, economists and critics have historically used the singular "Mill" as a metonym for the work. The composition of On Liberty was also indebted to the writings of the German thinker Wilhelm von Humboldt, especially his essay On the Limits of State Action.Mill 1859, pp. , 143–44, 150, 164 Finally published in 1859, On Liberty was one of Mill's two most influential books (the other being Utilitarianism).
In 2022 stylometric analysis suggested that Harriet Taylor Mill's contributions are sufficiently substantial for her to be regarded as co-author. In 2026, the first edition adding Harriet Taylor Mill's name alongside John Stuart Mill's was published by Hackett.
Overview Introduction The Mills open their essay by discussing the historical "struggle between authority and liberty,"Mill 1859, p. 3 describing the tyranny of government, which, in their view, needs to be controlled by the liberty of the citizens. They divide this control of authority into two mechanisms: necessary rights belonging to citizens, and the "establishment of constitutional checks by which the consent of the community, or of a body of some sort, supposed to represent its interests, was made a necessary condition to some of the more important acts of the governing power."Mill 1859, p. 4 Because society was—in its early stages—subjected to such turbulent conditions (i.e. small population and constant war), it was forced to accept rule "by a master." However, as mankind progressed, it became conceivable for the people to rule themselves. The Mills admit that this new form of society seemed immune to tyranny because "there was no fear of tyrannizing over self."Mill 1859, p. 5 Despite the high hopes of the Enlightenment, the Mills argue that the democratic ideals were not as easily met as expected. First, even in a democracy, the rulers were not always the same sort of people as the ruled.Mill 1859, p. 6 Second, there is a risk of a "tyranny of the majority" in which the many oppress the few who, according to democratic ideals, have just as much a right to pursue their legitimate ends.Mill 1859, p. 7Mill 1859, p. 13
In the Mills' view, tyranny of the majority is worse than tyranny of government because it is not limited to a political function. Where one can be protected from a tyrant, it is much harder to be protected "against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling." The prevailing opinions within society will be the basis of all rules of conduct within society; thus there can be no safeguard in law against the tyranny of the majority. The Mills' proof goes as follows: the majority opinion may not be the correct opinion. The only justification for a person's preference for a particular moral belief is that it is that person's preference. On a specific issue, people will align themselves either for or against that issue; the side of greatest volume will prevail, but is not necessarily correct.Mill 1859, pp. 9–10 In conclusion to this analysis of past governments, Mill proposes a single standard for which a person's liberty may be restricted:
That 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.... Over himself, over his body and mind, the individual is sovereign.Mill 1859, pp. 21–22
The Mills clarify that this standard is solely based on utility, not on natural rights.Mill 1859, p. 16 According to the Mills, children and "barbarian" nations benefit from limited freedom.Mill 1859, p. 15 Just despots, such as Charlemagne and Akbar the Great, were historically beneficial to people not yet fit to rule themselves.
They conclude the Introduction by discussing what they claimed were the three basic liberties in order of importance:Mill 1859, p. 18
The freedom of thought and emotion. This includes the freedom to act on such thought, i.e. freedom of speech The freedom to pursue tastes (provided they do no harm to others), even if they are deemed "immoral" The freedom to unite so long as the involved members are of age, the involved members are not forced, and no harm is done to others
While the Mills admit that these freedoms could—in certain situations—be pushed aside, they claim that in contemporary and civilised societies there is no justification for their removal.Mill 1859, p. 19
Of the liberty of thought and discussion In the second chapter, the Mills attempts to prove their claim from the first chapter that opinions ought never to be suppressed.Mill 1859, ch. 2 Looking to the consequences of suppressing opinions, they conclude that opinions ought never to be suppressed, stating, "Such prejudice, or oversight, when it [i.e. false belief] occurs, is altogether an evil; but it is one from which we cannot hope to be always exempt, and must be regarded as the price paid for an inestimable good." They claim that there are three sorts of beliefs that can be had—wholly false, partly true, and wholly true—all of which, according to the Mills, benefit the common good:Mill 1859, p. 72
The Mills spend much of the chapter discussing the implications of and objections to the policy of never suppressing opinions. In doing so, they explain their opinion of Christian ethics,Mill 1859, pp. 66–68Mill 1859, p. 35 arguing that, while such ethics are praiseworthy,Mill 1859, p. 36Mill 1859, p. 41 they are incomplete on their own. Therefore, the Mills conclude that suppression of opinion based on belief in infallible doctrine is dangerous.Mill 1859, p. 45 Among the other objections they answer is the objection that the truth will necessarily survive persecutionMill 1859, pp. 38–39 and that society need only teach the grounds for truth, not the objections to it.Mill 1859, p. 48 Near the end of Chapter 2, the Mills state that "unmeasured vituperation, enforced on the side of prevailing opinion, deters people from expressing contrary opinion, and from listening to those who express them."Mill, John Stuart, Harvard Classics: Volume 25, PF Collier & Sons, New York 1909, p. 258.
On individuality as one of the elements of well-being In the third chapter, the Mills point out the inherent value of individuality since individuality is ex vi termini (i.e. by definition) the thriving of the human person through the higher pleasures.Mill 1859, p. 84Mill 1859, p. 89 They argue that a society ought to attempt to promote individuality as it is a prerequisite for creativity and diversity. With this in mind, the Mills believe that conformity is dangerous. They state that they fear that Western civilization approaches this well-intentioned conformity to praiseworthy maxims characterized by the Chinese civilization.Mill 1859, pp. 98–99 Therefore, they conclude that actions in themselves do not matter. Rather, the person behind the action and the action together are valuable.Mill 1859, p. 81 He writes:
On the limits to the authority of society over the individual In the fourth chapter, the Mills explain a system in which a person can discern what aspects of life should be governed by the individual and which by society.Mill 1859, p. 103 Generally, they hold that a person should be left as free to pursue their own interests as long as this does not harm the interests of others. In such a situation, "society has jurisdiction over [the person's conduct]." They reject the idea that this liberty is simply for the purpose of allowing selfish indifference. Rather, they argue that this liberal system will bring people to the good more effectively than physical or emotional coercion.Mill 1859, p. 104 This principle leads them to conclude that a person may, without fear of just punishment, harm himself through vice. Governments, they claim, should only punish a person for neglecting to fulfill a duty to others (or causing harm to others), not the vice that brought about the neglect.Mill 1859, p. 108
The Mills spend the rest of the chapter responding to objections to their maxim. They note the objection that they contradicts themselves in granting societal interference with youth because they are irrational, but denying societal interference with certain adults, though they act irrationally.Mill 1859, p. 111 The Mills first respond by restating the claim that society ought to punish the harmful consequences of the irrational conduct, but not the irrational conduct itself, which is a personal matter.Mill 1859, p. 112 Furthermore, they note the societal obligation is not to ensure that each individual is moral throughout adulthood.Mill 1859, p. 113 Rather, they state that, by educating youth, society has the opportunity and duty to ensure that a generation, as a whole, is generally moral.Mill 1859, p. 114