Summary
In this chapter, Mill attempts to delineate when the authority of society can
rightly limit individuality and the "sovereignty of the individual over
himself." Mill's answer is that society and the individual should each receive
control over that part of human life that it is particularly interested in.
While rejecting the idea of a social contract, Mill writes that since people
receive the protection of society, they owe certain conduct in return.
Individuals must not injure those interests of other people that should be
considered rights. Individuals must fairly share the burden of defending
society and its members from injury. Finally, individuals may be censured by
opinion, though not by law, for harming others while not violating their rights.
Thus, society has jurisdiction over any aspect of human behavior that "affects
prejudicially the interests of others."
However, society does not have an interest in those aspects of life that affect
no one but the person acting, or only affects people by their consent. Mill
writes that such behavior should be both legally permitted and socially
accepted. People should encourage others to make full use of their faculties.
They should not, however, try to keep a person from doing with his life what he
wishes. Mill justifies this position by observing that anybody else's interests
in or knowledge about a particular person's well being is "trifling" compared to
the individual's own interest and knowledge.
Mill says that he does not mean that people should not be allowed to point out
what they see as faults in other people's behavior. In addition, he is not
proscribing avoiding a person or warning others about that person. These
"penalties" are acceptable because they are natural reactions to some
behavior--they are not intended to punish a person. However, People do not have
the right to express moral reprobation, and they should not try to make the
person uncomfortable. He should not be treated with anger or resentment, or
seen as an enemy if he engages in unpopular activities that only affect himself.
Mill then addresses potential criticism of his argument. How "can any part of
the conduct of a member of society be a matter of indifference to the other
members?" No human is fully isolated, and actions can create bad examples, hurt
those who depend on the person and diminish community resources. Furthermore,
why can't society interfere on behalf of mature people incapable of "self-
government?"
Mill replies that he agrees that some behavior may affect the "sympathies" and
interests of others, and hurt the well-being of society at large. When an
action violates a person's obligations then it does not only affect himself, and
he can be properly face moral reprobation for breaking those obligations. Mill
forwards the example of a person who is unable to pay debts because of
extravagant living. He says that such behavior is subject to punishment because
the person fails to fulfill a duty to his creditors. However, the person
should not be punished for the extravagance itself--that is a personal decision
that must be respected.
