 |
| Liberty Bell stamp |
ON LIBERTY
By John Stuart Mill
Reviewed by
Geoffrey W. Sutton
My occasion for re-reading On Liberty was the mention of Mill and Rawls by professor Brian Leiter in his lecture, “Why Tolerate Religion,” which he presented at Drury University.
My joint interest in philosophy and
psychology began during my undergraduate years. Mill’s book On Liberty is one I kept since taking a graduate
course on Political Philosophy at the University of Missouri, where my
psychology professors graciously allowed me to count philosophy courses toward
my doctoral requirements. Philosophers have of course contributed much to an
understanding of human nature, which is why I continue to read philosophy.
As I look back at Mill’s
writings, I see a man on the cusp of philosophy and science guiding thinkers
toward empiricism whilst maintaining an eminently pragmatic stance. In a sense,
I see him contributing hypotheses to social psychology and that subfield of
current interest to me, moral psychology.
In On Liberty, Mill essentially makes a strong case for individual
freedom and the importance of government toleration of a wide range of thinking
and behavior so long as one individual does not harm another. One could argue
that people always have freedom of thought but I take it Mill means the freedom
to express those thoughts for it is in the expression of thoughts in speech and
writing that we obtain feedback from others that helps us hone our thinking.1
We cannot learn from others when our thoughts are not represented in the
marketplace of ideas.
Behavior may encompass speech acts
but Mill seems to use the term behavior
to refer to what we might call a lifestyle—patterns of observable social
behavior. Mill observed that much of behavior was governed by custom and was
quite irrational. In some cases, custom had the force of law with attendant
punishments. And at other times, social disapprobation was strong enough to
suppress ways of living. In effect, people hid their socially unacceptable ways
of living for fear of death, imprisonment, or social disgrace, and accompanying
isolation.
Tyranny vs. Tolerance
Revisiting the limitation on
freedom for Mill and his 19th century cohort, it is easy to see the progress
made in western societies in the last 150 years or so. Yet the issues on the
boundaries of tolerance continue to be of current concern. Any large society
has often struggled with divisions over matters of right and wrong-- acceptable
and unacceptable behavior.
For centuries, religious leaders
have controlled individual and societal standards of right and wrong. And
religious leaders still coerce obedience by threats of death—sometimes
literal—other times eternal—sometimes both. In some nations, religious rules
have the power of law and in others, religious beliefs control behavior via
values inculcated in the lives of the young and maintained by clergy, embarrassment-mongers,
gossips, and all sorts of life-meddlers. It’s no wonder so many have rejected
religion in western cultures where religious rules lack the force of law and other
social structures exist to offer social support when people live in religiously unapproved ways.
The freedom from religion has
taken a different tack of late. In the United Kingdom and the United States
tolerance of diversity has expanded to include behaviors once considered
criminal or at least socially undesirable. And of course, in the language of
religion, many acts were judged to be sin; not just any old sin but sins worthy
of condemnation by God. You can probably recall clergy explaining that a
disease or disaster is an act of God visited on a nation as
punishment for the sins of the people.
A few weeks ago I visited Bletchley
Park where the famous mathematical genius Alan Turing and his colleagues broke
the Nazi code, which significantly contributed to the end of World War II,
undoubtedly a moral good. Despite his contributions to the war effort, Turing
was found guilty of “gross indecency” based on an 1885 act—he did not hide his
homosexuality. Sixty years later, in 2012 he was posthumously pardoned (BBC).
In the last few years, Christians and
Muslims have experienced challenges to their freedom in the United States.
Muslims of course incurred great suspicion following the September 11 attacks.
Conservative Christians have taken a number of public blows as their positions
on such matters as abortion and same-sex marriage are at odds with substantial
portions of the electorate as well as existing laws or judicial decisions.
Importance of Tolerance
Ironically, people in societies
once dominated by Christian morality, often codified in law, now find
themselves restricting the freedom of Christian groups to live out their
understanding of their faith in the public square. If the restrictions on
religious freedom increase, I wonder if segments of the Christian population
will end up like the Amish—living out their ancient traditions in quaint
colonies that become tourist attractions.
Now I return to Mill’s ideas to
make a case for religious tolerance. The expression of religious views is
sometimes reviled as “hate speech” when the views contradict the dominant
social view. Inciting riot and violence cannot be tolerated. But arguing that
ideas of a society along with its rules and laws are morally wrong, offensive,
or even harmful ought not to be suppressed. As Mill observes, humans rarely get
things perfectly right. A society that silences dissent is on the road to
tyranny even if the new found ways appear more liberating than older ways. I say
let’s continue to hear religious views along with other views.
I also think Mill’s notion of
behavioral experiments worthy of consideration.2 As long as people
are not causing harm by their actions, some toleration of “alternate lifestyles”
seems worthy as these experiments help all observers judge if such ways of
living are in some way better than the ways of the majority or even those of
other minority groups. Thus, I think conservative religious people ought to
have the freedom to go about their lives based on their understanding of their sacred
texts. Why not let them follow their traditions so long as people are free to
join or leave their communities (organizations, campuses) and suffer no material harm? Is there any real
harm in permitting a group of people to hire only men as clergy or restrict
marriage to one man and one woman? Is there any harm in having religious schools
where they are free to promote abstinence from alcohol and sex until marriage? So much will depend on how "harm" is defined and how much "harm" is tolerated.
Boundaries of Tolerance
Mill was a thoughtful statesman as
well as a philosopher. He was well aware that freedom must be bounded by responsibility.
As noted above, freedom of expression does not extend to inciting people to
violence. Nor does freedom to live out an alternate way of life include freedom to
harm others. In fact, Mill also shows how a person’s harm of self or
destruction of personal property can have a harmful impact on the lives of loved ones. Moreover,
before the scientific study of role models, Mill noted the ability of personal
example to influence the behavior of others, which of course is also found in
ancient wisdom.3 Simply put, we do not live in isolation. No woman is an eyot. No man is an island.
Cite this blog post
Sutton,
G. W. (2016, December 30). On liberty and tolerance. [Web log post]. Retrieved
from http://suttonreviews.suttong.com/2016/06/on-liberty-and-tolerance.html
Mill’s book
Mill,
J.S. (1859/1956). On Liberty (Currin
V. Shields, edition). New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
Old
editions of On Liberty can be found
as a pdf file on the web.
____________________________________________________________________
Read more about Christian cultures and related issues in
A House Divided: Sexuality, Morality, and Christian Cultures
___________________________________________________________________
Notes
1. Mill’s connection of thought to
speech and writing is near the end of Chapter 1.
2. Experiments in living can be
found in Chapter 3.
3. Mill discusses the influence of
an example in Chapter 4.
Comments
Post a Comment