From The Student Room

TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > Politics > Chapter 1 - Introductory

---

• Makes clear at outset that subject of essay not Free Will vs. Determinism, but: ‘Civil, or Social Liberty: the nature & limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual’ - ‘the vital question of the future’. Later in chap, says that ‘the tendency of all the changes taking place in the world is to strengthen society, & diminish the power of the indiv’.

• Formerly, the struggle between Liberty and Authority was between subjects or some classes of subjects vs Gov. ‘By Liberty, was meant protection against the tyranny of political rulers’. These limits to gov. power over community achieved by i.) recognition of pol liberties/rights, then ii.) constitutional checks, then iii.) elections, democratic accountability.

• USA as e.g., states that phrases like ‘self-government’ don’t express true sit: [i.] ‘The people who exercise the power are not always the same people with those over whom it is exercised; & [ii.] the ‘self-government’ spoken of is not the government of each by himself, but of each by all the rest’ – in practice the maj., or those who make themselves accepted as the maj. So, even with democ., still a need for limit of gov. power vs indivs to prevent ‘tyranny of the majority’ (‘people may desire to oppress a part of their number’).

• When Soc itself tyrant, its powers not restricted to acts of its political functionaries: ‘Tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling’ – though penalties usually less extreme, ‘it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself’. So protection vs this tyranny also needed. Mentions tendency of soc. to ‘impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development… of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves on the model of its own’.

• ‘There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence’ – ‘as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism’. (Some rules of conduct must be imposed by law ‘& by opinion on the many things which are not fit subjects for the operation of law’ – so gives public opinion a role…)

• Rules laid down for general observance, under penalties of law or opinion, mainly determined in practice by likings & dislikings of soc or a powerful element within it. (Custom, the views/class interests of an ascendant class, and religion at present main influences on/determinants of rules of conduct). Has a go at religious intolerance…

• In England, yoke of opinion heavier & that of law lighter than in most other Euro countries. (Considerable jealousy of direct gov. interference with private conduct, or with things hitherto outside gov. sphere of interference.) Writes that maj. have not yet made most of their possible influence on gov.; ‘when they do so, individual liberty will probably be as much exposed to invasion from the government, as it already is from public opinion’. No recognised principle for propriety of gov. interference: people decide according to personal preferences, range from max (remedy any evil, do any good) to minimum (even if soc. v. bad).

• Essay objective to assert one ‘very simple’ principle to ‘govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control’, viz: ‘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. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or to forbear because it will be better for him, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right.’ Good reasons for reasoning/remonstrating with him/entreating but not compelling/punishing him – that’s only justified if conduct is calculated to produce evil on someone else. ‘The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. ’.

• This doctrine only applies to ‘human beings in the maturity of their faculties’. Kids – ‘still in a state to require being taken care of by others, must be protected against their own actions as well as against external injury’ – and, for same (i.e. underlined) reason, ‘barbarians’ excluded. Despotism legit provided their improvement is aim and means justified by effecting that end. ‘Liberty, as a principle, has no application… [until] mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion.’, at which point P of L applies (as in case of all nations with which he’s concerned, he says).

• Foregoes ‘any advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right, as a thing independent of utility. I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being’.

• Punishment & Compulsion; Action & Inaction: We may be compelled rightfully to perform many positive acts for others’ benefit: e.g. evidence in court/bear fair share in common defence or ‘any other joint work in the interest of society of which he enjoys the protection’; save life, protect defenceless against ‘ill-usage’. – in such cases (individual beneficence), obviously one’s duty to help – can be made answerable to soc. for not helping. Causing evil by inaction: as a rule of thumb says ‘to make any one answerable for doing to others, is the rule; to make him answerable for not preventing evil, is, comparatively speaking, the exception… In all things which regard the external relations of the individual, he is de jure amenable to those whose interests are concerned, and if need be, to society as their protector.’. Should only not hold him to responsibility if it’s a kind of case in which he’s on the whole likely to act better when left to his own discretion, or if evils of soc’s attempt to exercise control> than those which it should prevent. If so, left to indiv’s judgement.

• Areas where soc. shouldn’t interfere (only has ‘indirect interest’): ‘liberty of thought & feeling… on all subjects’, of expressing & publishing opinions – (concerns others but, being of almost as imp as liberty of thought, & resting in great part on the same reasons, ‘is practically inseparable from it’. ) of tastes & pursuits, framing plan of our lives, doing as we like, provided doesn’t harm others. Can unite (for any purpose not involving harm to others) prov full age & not forced/deceived. ‘Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest’ (Util justification?)

Comments