On Liberty# summary

If democratic societies want to protect liberty, then they will have to examine various aspects of their culture that cannot be understood without thinking about historical processes and human behavior.

The question of personal liberty must be addressed from a rational point of view. Yet, the rules and laws of a society as well as public opinion are influenced mainly by the likes and dislikes of a given society. In other words, they are entirely irrational. What’s more, all people in that society almost automatically assume that their customs are right and good.

What if someone you know is unconvinced that the powers of society and the government should have limits? How could you respond? What reasons could you provide to convince him otherwise?

Some philosophers such as John Locke have argued that ethical standards follow from natural or inborn rights. But, as we’ve seen in the previous blinks, what we define as “natural” is very much subjective, based on the cultural whims of the societies in which we participate.

No one else is responsible for an individual’s well-being other than the individual herself. As human beings, we have the capacity to come to our own judgments through careful reflection; people must decide on their own what to think and do, and no one should be allowed to exert their will on someone else’s liberty.

One exception, however, is children. While adults have the mental capacity to make sound decisions, children, on the other hand, lack the maturity to do so. As a result, it’s acceptable for adults to interfere with children’s liberty, in their own best interest.

There are some strong cases for limiting an individual’s freedom in order to prevent harm. For example, society has the right to stop those who get drunk and then act violently. Drunkenness alone is no reason to revoke someone’s liberties. But we may certainly revoke the liberties of those who have already acted violently under the influence of alcohol and get drunk again, for example, by imposing fines or jailing them. Because they are prone to become violent when they are intoxicated, getting drunk in their case is a crime against others.  

However, sometimes not doing things can harm the people around us, too. Consequently, society is justified to force individuals to do things that they might not want to do, such as make their fair contribution to finance infrastructure projects, like hospitals or roads.

You might feel hurt when someone takes a parking spot you wanted, but is this the kind of harm we’re talking about? Would it justify interference from society or the government? Probably not. So when does harm justify interference with someone’s liberty?

Not everything that might have negative consequences for others actually justifies interference. In fact, interference is only justified when somebody harms others by violating an obligation he has towards someone else or society in general. For example, although people are generally allowed to get drunk, it is clearly forbidden for on-duty police officers as they are responsible for the security of society.

Nowadays, there seems to be no question that freedom of thought and speech are protected and respected. However, many people have probably never thought deeply about why these liberties are so important to begin with.

As we’ve seen, when it comes to their beliefs and convictions, people too easily follow the opinions of their social groups and accept the words of institutions, such as the church or political parties, as absolute truth.

Most of us probably think that some opinions are just flat out wrong, and that people who hold those opinions would be better to just keep their mouths shut. This is especially true for hot-button issues, such as abortion or gender equality. But would this actually be good for society? In short: no.

Incorrect opinions are valuable in that they force society to think about common, entrenched beliefs and reflect on why their opinions are correct.