In his essay, On Liberty, 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 impress their own beliefs and values onto other members of society who do not willingly adhere to these beliefs, but rather are compelled in this acquiescence (Mill 7). Mill asserts that this compulsion to conform to public opinion prevents the development of individuality among the community (Mill 7). In his discussion, Mill explains his conception of the characteristics of individuality, and the role of individuals in society.
Mill claims that the goal of the ideal individual is to continually strive towards achieving the complete development of his faculties (Mill 66). This development includes all types of knowledge; a true individual does not specialize in only one area. To obtain this complete 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 person's individuality.
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 or herself. Their decision must be based on reason, and not coercion to accept current customs. The individual will reject those customs which he or she is not inclined to embrace (Mill 67). A person who conforms to custom simply because everyone else does is not taking full advantage of his or her faculties of reason and judgment (Mill 68).
Once a person has examined all sides of an issue and made a decision, based on reason, which side is most agreeable to his or her own situation, he or she must then act upon their opinions (Mill 23). This acting upon opinions includes setting up what mode of life is best for him or her, and engaging in free discussion about their opinions. An ideal individual acknowledges that his opinions may be fallible, and therefore seeks out people who hold opposite views so as to continually test the truth of his own opinion.
In these discussions, the individual does not seek to rashly disregard his opponent's arguments, but rather keeps an open mind. He listens carefully to the arguments against his own opinion and the ones for his opponent's opinion. An individual must understand both or all sides of an opinion in order to fully understand his own opinion. This is the only way that an individual will most nearly arrive at the truth of their opinion (Mill 25).
In 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 truths are 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 has some element of truth. The individual works to reconcile the two opinions that both hold elements of truth to a consistent whole (Mill 53). Therefore, openness of mind and willingness to change is crucial towards development.
In addition to testing one's opinions, public discussion is imperative to the development of individuality in that if there were no discussion, people would forget the reasons why they hold those opinions (Mill 46). Mill asserts that when an opinion has become established among many people, if not the majority of society, then the opinion tends to be reduced to an "hereditary creed" (Mill 47). This creed gets passed down to others in a passive manner who do not test the validity of the creed "by personal experience" (Mill 47). The person who accepts these beliefs without discussion can never develop towards becoming an individual. When controversy over a particular belief and discussion of that belief ceases, Mill claims that "the living power of the doctrine" begins to diminish (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 the allowance of discussion is that, however widely accepted as truth an opinion may be, there remains the possibility of its fallibility. In suppressing dissenting opinions, mankind runs the risk of committing an error that succeeding generations will view with "astonishment and horror" (Mill 29). To illustrate this point, Mill offers the experiences of two historical persons: Socrates and Jesus. Both of these men deviated from widely accepted customs and beliefs of their time, and both men suffered persecution for their beliefs, resulting in their being executed (Mill 29-30).
Even though both Socrates' and Jesus' doctrines survived to be passed on to succeeding generations, Mill does not agree that truths always will survive persecution (Mill 33). He maintains the reason that Christianity survived its early years was that persecution of its adherents was "only occasional" and "lasting but a short time" (Mill 34). Mill acknowledges that dissenters are no longer put to death, but he maintains they suffer from persecution still. In Mill's society, dissenters are commonly labeled as "bad and immoral men" (Mill 62).
This "unmeasured vituperation" of majority opinion does indeed cause people to refrain from voicing their beliefs which differ from the customary ones (Mill 62). When an opinion is not expressed, Mill claims that this is "robbing the human race" of the opportunity to discover their own truth (Mill 21). For these reasons, Mill believes that dissenting views from the majority opinion should never be suppressed.
In addition to holding and discussing their own opinions, people need to have the freedom to act upon those opinions, e.g. in choosing the sort of life that works best for him or her (Mill 68). Mill asserts that "while mankind are imperfect" we need to have "different experiments of living" as well as diversity of opinion (Mill 65). However, Mill does realize that actions cannot be as free as opinions, if they cause harm to others (Mill 64). In asserting their individuality, people must not say or do things that might infringe on someone else's rights or incite others to infringe on those rights (Mill 64). To take a modern example, people have the right to protest against abortion in front of an abortion clinic, but they do not have the right to prevent 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 upon others who do not want them. The individual can and should share their opinions with others, and may attempt to persuade others to their own side, but there is never any justification to force others to accept them, either through legal prosecution or social condemnation. Mill argues that when a society is uniform, there can be no improvement among individuals or society as a whole (Mill 85). It is only through diversity and exchange of opinions that a society can continue progressing towards the ideal.
Bibliography
Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. Dover Publications, 2002.
Mary Arnold is an author on http://www.Writing.Com/ which is a site for Creative Writers.
Her writing portfolio may be viewed at http://www.Writing.com/authors/ja77521