On Liberty and Utilitarianism

by John Stuart Mill

These two essays by John Stuart Mill, England's greatest nineteenth-century philosopher, are the fruit of six hundred years of progressive thought about individual rights and the responsibilities of society. Together they provide the moral and theoretical justification for liberal democracy as we know it, and their incalculable influence on modern history testifies not only to the force of their arguments, but also to the power ideas can have over human affairs.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Politics, Classics, Economics, History, Sociology

81 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1859

About the author

John Stuart Mill, English philosopher, political economist, civil servant and Member of Parliament, was an influential liberal thinker of the 19th century. He was an exponent of utilitarianism, an ethical theory developed by Jeremy Bentham, although his conception of it was very different from Bentham's.

Reviews

[Daniel Hageman · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you're looking for the On Liberty portion of this book, would definitely recommend the Penguin Classics version, as it provides a much more in-depth introductions covering relevant political philosophy of the time and biographical information on JSM. It also presents many references for academics that oppose many of JSM's views. This introduction essentially consists of a peeved Dershowitz deriding a fair bit of the material according to his personal view, with an overuse of emotive language etc. Thankfully, though, it doesn't last more than a couple pages.

See my review of On Liberty for the other version if interested.

The On Utilitarianism part of the book (for which my rating reflects) was fantastic, and gave a concise view of a topic that seems to for so long have been misjudged. The distinction between terms like 'motive' and 'intention' are still unclear to me (p.158), though the reference to Bentham likely addresses such an issue is sufficient detail.

On p.201 JSM highlights the secular origin for the concept of ‘free will’ “…men imagined what they called the freedom of the will; fancying that they could not justify punishing a man whose will is in a thoroughly hateful state, unless it be supposed to have come into that state through no influence of anterior circumstances.” Here, I wish he had gone into detail as to why accountability by law is justified regardless of predetermined dispositions that lead individual to commit infractions, though he does address rehabilitation and deterrence are other points throughout the same chapter.

On p.204, the discussion on taxation is quite well found, as JSM clarifies that the State does not do more for the rich than it does for the poor (which people use to justify higher tax rates for the wealthy), because it is the rich that would thrive more without the influence/protection of the state, forming monopolies over the poor and effectually making them slaves. And if the rich are taxed at higher rates, why should they not be charged at higher rates for the purchase of the same product as those of a lesser income. (To this, I would presume deal between the poor and the rich to purchase good for one another would mitigate any and all effects, whereas government taxation is more easily overseen and enforceable. JSM also points out the other side, though, that for man and their efforts, given their circumstance for which they did not choose, why should one prosper more than another? The right of the workers are protected here, but from the other side, those that provide more for society seem to deserve more, and the rights of the society in what they must give to the individual is protected here.

Other notable quotes:

p.165 “…to argue as if no such secondary principles could be had, and as if mankind had remained till now, and always must remain, without drawing any general conclusions from the experience of human life, is as high a pitch, I think, as absurdity has ever reached in philosophical controversy.”

p.163 “…defenders of utility often find themselves called upon to such objects as this—that there is not time, previous to action, for calculating and weighing the effects of any line of conduct on the general happiness. This is exactly as if any one were to say that it is impossible to guide our conduct on Christianity, because there is not time, on every occasion on which anything has to be done, to read through the Old and New Testaments."

p.199 “To have a right, then, is, I conceive to have something which society ought to defend me in the possession of.”

[Amin · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book stands on the pinnacle of mankind's achievement in philosophy, and as one of my friends always says it can be considered the holy book of atheists.

[Sharon · Rating 4 out of 5]

I loved the essay On Liberty. I've read it before, but this reading was much more meaningful, perhaps because about 10 years have elapsed and politics in this country have convinced me we need Mill's explanation of why we have the rights we do and their importance in our lives more than ever. It's amazing how much Mill's On Liberty has shaped how we perceive our rights and their importance in the 20th and 21st centuries. Must be read. The essay on Utilitarianism is the only weak element of this book. He argues that individual and group human happiness is the highest moral good. and that the pursuit of human happiness guides human behavior. I was just not convinced of the arguments of how to get people to shape our ethics for human happiness, especially at the group level.

[Abdul Monum · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mill defends freedom of thought, speech, lifestyle, and action, as long as those actions don’t injure others. In the 2nd part On liberty he concludes that justice is grounded in utility. Protecting rights and fairness isn’t a limit on utilitarianism but a central requirement of it, since security and justice are essential for long-term happiness. Despite all his noble ideas he starts with the idea that these rights are only for civilised humans and not the societies which are not developed yet and he thinks they deserve despotic people to lead them. According to him Happiness is the ultimate moral standard. Higher pleasures and individuality matter most. Justice and rights are not obstacles but necessary parts of utility. He has the belief that A truly free society protects the individual’s right to think, speak, and live differently even in ways the majority dislikes so long as they do not harm others. Without this protection, society risks stagnation, oppression, and the loss of human potential.

[Chris Jaquin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I personally enjoyed these 2 quotes:

pg 76 "Human nature is not a machine to be built after a model, and set to do exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree, which requires to grow and develop itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing."

pg 164 "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides."

[Megan · Rating 2 out of 5]

personally i'd rather be an oyster

[rara · Rating 4 out of 5]

John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty is one of those rare books that grows more relevant with age. In a time of control, outrage, and conformity, Mill’s defense of personal freedom is a breath of fresh air. He doesn’t just advocate liberty; he explains why it’s vital for individual growth and societal progress. Few have articulated the relationship between the individual and the state with such clarity—then again, Mill was a leader of utilitarian thought for a reason.

At its core lies the harm principle: society should only restrict freedom to prevent harm to others—not to protect people from themselves. Even well-intentioned restrictions can lead to intellectual decay. “There is the greatest difference,” he writes, “between presuming an opinion to be true… and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation.” Suppressing debate, even around true ideas, weakens our understanding of them.

Mill also warns against passive belief—when ideas go unchallenged, society stops understanding them, repeating truths out of habit rather than conviction. While a fierce advocate for liberty, he acknowledges its limits. For example, drunkenness isn’t a crime, but for a soldier or policeman on duty, it is. He also critiques over-reliance on government, warning that when people expect the state to solve everything, they also blame it for every failure. “When the evil exceeds their amount of patience, they rise against the government… and everything goes on much as it did before.” In an age of bureaucratic fatigue, his words feel eerily prophetic.

I suggest rethinking how you treat opposing views and the freedoms we often take for granted.

[Yosra · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have already read Mill's essay on liberty Years Ago. What I found rather interesting while re-reading was How Delicately Mill attempted to draw the lines between Individual Vs. "state" Rights. I believe He is -by far- the most eloquent philosopher to speak on the matter. Moving on to the essay on utilitarianism, The Argument is rather simple and solid. "Seek pleasure, Avoid pain", The General notion here is undeniably true. Also You can't overlook His stress on the role educaton play in infusing the individual's benefit with the society's Overall wellbeing. The only down side to mill's in my pov, That he is rather dismissive of opposing Opinions and philosophies.

[Appu · Rating 4 out of 5]

What the Communist Manifesto is to the Marxists, On Liberty is to the liberals. It is a bold assertion of liberal principles in clear unambiguous terms. Where the Communist Manifesto proposes a dictatorship of the proletariat, violent extermination of class enemies and socialization of the means of production, On Liberty envisages a state that would not interfere in the individual’s liberty even for his own good so long as the individual does not harm others. Far from an all-powerful state that controls the means of production and means of violence, Mill warns against the overreach of state as the greatest potential threat to individual liberty. On Liberty and the Communist Manifesto were both written in the 2nd half of the 19th century. In terms of influence, On Liberty continues to inspire lovers of freedom to this day; whereas the CM is now a discredited document which interests only students of Marxism.

Where Mill differs from others in the liberal tradition is his rejection of liberty as a natural right. Jefferson wrote in the US Declaration of Independence: “We hold these principles to be self-evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Unlike Locke or Jefferson, Mill does not see liberty as inherently valuable or as in intrinsic aspect of the human personality. Mill argues that individual liberty is to be respected because it advances the interests of society. “Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each to live as seems good to themselves than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.”

Mill gives two reasons for his defense of liberty:(1) Interest of truth requires diversity of opinions. If society/state suppresses an opinion, there is a possibility that truth is suppressed. So, society loses the chance to exchange falsehood for truth. Even if the opinion suppressed is erroneous, no harm is done by allowing it to be heard. Truth emerges clearer in contestation with falsehood. Untested truth is mere dogma. Even if received wisdom is correct, unless contested, it becomes mere prejudice or dogma.
(2) Liberty allows the cultivation of individuality in society. ‘Peculiarity of tastes’ and ‘eccentricity of opinions’ in individuals must be cherished. Such eccentrics, who defy the norms of society are the ones who keep the vitality of society alive. They save society from collective mediocrity. According to Mill, “That so few dares to be eccentric marks the chief danger of our time”.

Can the state limit the liberty of the individual on any grounds? According to Mill, so long as the conduct of an individual concerns himself only and has no social consequences, state cannot intervene in the affairs of that individual. “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully used against any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, weather moral or physical, is not a sufficient warrant.”
Society cannot intervene when a person's conduct neither violates any specific duty to the public nor occasions perceptible hurt to any assignable individual except himself. The state or society can entreat, persuade, reason, or remonstrate but cannot compel an individual on a matter that falls within the sphere of personal liberty

Mil’s doctrine of limiting the sphere of state action is called the harm principle. This may appear to severely circumscribe state’s authority, but there are ways to get around this principle. For instance, a law mandating the compulsory wearing of helmet for motor cyclists may appear to be ruled out based on harm principle. Afterall, if a motorcyclist gets injured, it affects only himself. So not wearing a helmet is a self-regarding action. But then it can be argued that not wearing helmet would risk a rider’s life and therefore comes in the way of the person’s obligations to his dependants and therefore is an other-regarding action and amenable to state regulation. It can also be argued that non-wearing of helmet can cause frequent accidents which would be a strain on the health care system of the state. It would therefore be appropriate for the state to insist on compulsory use of helmets.

Mill realises the limitations of the harm principle in limiting state interference in the “sphere of liberties”, therefore he concludes his essay by cautioning against such interference, even if justified. He gives three important reasons: (1) State is inefficient, individuals joining together can do a better job in most cases than the state through its officials. (2) Even if the individuals are unable to do a job as efficiently as the state, they should be allowed to do it for their own mental advancement or education.(3) An expansion of state will add to its power which will pose a long term threat to individual liberty.

According to Mill, “The worth of a state in the long run is the worth of the individuals composing it …A state which dwarfs its men in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes will find that with small men no great thing can be really accomplished.”

Mill’s attempt to ground individual liberty on the principle of utility fails. It robs liberty of its raw emotional appeal. Harm principle opens the door to a paternalistic state. Where, On Liberty succeeds is in explaining the value of liberty to society. Mill’s arguments have become so much a part of our shared wisdom, that each time a film is banned, or a book is proscribed, or a lifestyle is stigmatized, we see his arguments repeated without acknowledgement.

[Steve Heikkila · Rating 3 out of 5]

"That flathead Mill," Nietzsche called him.

[Marcelo Galuppo · Rating 4 out of 5]

O livro contém, além de um estudo introdutório de Isaiah Berlin, dois tratados de Mill.
Numa democracia, uma maioria pode desejar oprimir uma minoria. Por isso é preciso estabelecer um limite inviolável dos direitos de um indivíduo. É disso que trata o ensaio Sobre a Liberdade. O argumento de Mill é que nós só somos responsáveis moralmente, e portanto só podemos ser impedidos legalmente, por aquelas ações que interferem na liberdade de outros indivíduos. Consequentemente, uma das primeiras liberdades a ser protegida em uma democracia é a liberdade de consciência e de expressão, inviolável, segundo Mill, porque está intimamente ligada à descoberta da verdade, cuja busca não deve ser impedida silenciando-se violentamente alguém. A liberdade (inclusive d expressão) é apenas um meio para ser atingir o fim da vida em sociedade que, paradoxalmente, é a individualização de cada um dos participantes da sociedade, que nos torna uma sociedade plural. Somente naquilo que diz respeito diretamente aos outros indivíduos podemos limitar a ação de alguém: "ninguém, e nenhum grupo de pessoas, está autorizado a dizer a outra criatura humana madura que, para seu próprio benefício, não faça com sua vida o que escolher fazer dela"(p. 117). Apenas o risco de dano direto a outrem autoriza uma ação por parte da sociedade para coibir o comportamento de alguém. Em outros termos, "toda limitação, qua limitação, é um mal" (p. 145), e devemos limitar em especial o poder de o governo limitar a ação dos indivíduos pelo risco que isso pode representar no futuro.
Já em O utilitarismo, Mill, tenta fixar o princípio utilitarista da moralidade (a maior felicidade possível, entendida como ausência de dor ou como prazer, únicas coisas desejáveis em si mesmas) confrontando-o a outras teorias morais. Evidentemente, isso coloca alguns problemas. Em primeiro lugar, Mill pressupõe que somente o homem que experimentou prazeres superiores e inferiores pode julgar porque aqueles são preferíveis a esse, ainda que esses sejam mais essenciais para a vida. O egoísmo e a ignorância nos impedem, portanto, de avaliar corretamente os prazeres. Isso também levanta a questão de se a justiça é um sentimento que pode ser avaliado utilitarialisticamente. Mill crê ser necessário distinguir a justiça, como sentimento de que algo é um dever, que envolve a ideia de tratamento igual e imparcial, de meros atos que são generosos ou beneficentes para uns e não para outros (dar uma esmola para alguém pobre, mas não para outra pessoa na mesma situação, não é uma injustiça). Mas isso é também uma forma de utilidade. Na verdade, "parece que a palavra justiça designa certas exigências morais que, consideradas em seu conjunto, ocupam na escala da utilidade social um lugar social bastante elevado, e são por conseguinte mais rigorosamente obrigatórias do que quaisquer outras" (p. 276)

[jojo · Rating 2 out of 5]

Tbh didn’t really read this one but I remember he had a funny bridge metaphor and I contributed some random analogy in class

But look at this silly discussion post

Throughout my reading of Bentham’s An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, I expected to receive an introduction to the notion of utilitarianism, and I was surprised by the depth at which Bentham opens his text as a seasoned guide. Bentham introduces readers immediately to his perception of human nature, in which we are “under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.” (1) Bentham’s approach to quantifying pleasure was fascinating to follow throughout the text, and I was most surprised by Chapter 3, “Of the Four Sanctions or Sources of Pain and Pleasure”, in which he asserts that legislators should have a sole interest in the “happiness of their individuals, of whom a community is composed, that is their pleasures and their security, is the end and the sole end which the legislator ought to have in view.” (37) Because people are guided by pleasure and pain, these are the two components that must be taken into consideration in lawmaking. The value that Bentham places on the notion of pleasure and happiness reminded me of the Greek Cyrenaics, which was an early Socratic school that similarly emphasized the importance of pleasure and social obligation. Contrary to that of the Cyrenaics, Bentham’s approach to quantifying pleasure was fascinating, but to me, impractical. While Bentham certainly improves upon Kant’s abstractions and oversimplifications, the calculation of pleasure and pain become far more complicated than a numerical equation even in the simplest scenarios, such as when an individual cannot evaluate every potential course of action. Additionally, Bentham’s emphasis on pain and pleasure seemingly ignores other qualities of human nature. To this end, I wonder how Bentham would respond to actions that cause pain and pleasure; specifically, how should that be evaluated?

[Thomas Hettich · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although written in the 19th century, it is clear why this book is a classic. Our politics today struggle to navigate left/right and open/closed, “On Liberty and Utilitarianism" seems to offer a much better mindset and guidance for a healthy political debate.

In my review I will solely list some of my favorite parts:
- The introduction by Isaiah Berlin starts “The periods and societies in which civil liberties were respected, and variety of opinion and faith tolerated, have been very few and far between - oases in the desert of human uniformity, intolerance, and oppression.” The first time I read this part (more than 10 years ago), democracies had been making steady progress everywhere for years and there was an understanding that the world would continue (albeit at a slow pace) towards a libertarian utopia. This opening did not resonate with me at all. It felt antiquated. When I read it this time, Trump is now in office, and I feel the weight of this truth and the worrisome implications that what we had experience had been an oasis and that we are presently moving towards more intolerance and oppression.
- For Mill happiness relies on diversity (variety is a core public value of his) and his argument for inclusiveness couldn’t be more relevant today and shows how the need for uniformity is not only a present-day issue. He has contempt for uniformity: “…They now read the same things, listen to the same things, see the same things, go to the same places, have their hopes and fears directed to the same objects … they all tend to raise the low and lower the high.”
- Mill on Christians: “He has thus, on the one hand, a collection of ethical maxims, which he believes to have been vouchsafed to him by infallible wisdom as rules for his government; and on the other a set of every-day judgments and practices, which go a certain length with some of those maxims, not so great a length with others, stand in direct opposition to some, and are, on the whole, a compromise between the Christian creed and the interests and suggestions of worldly life. To the first of these standards he gives his homage; to the other his real allegiance.” and later “…,they (the Christians) believe these doctrines just up to the point to which it is usual to act upon them.” Although I enjoy his indictment of poor integrity, Mill continues to make the point, that Christianity is no longer a living (and growing) religion and there is no pro and contra talk anymore, thus the arguments for Christianity are no longer fresh in the minds of it’s followers. Later, Mill describes the truthfulness of Christianity - seen as a protest to paganism, it's ideal being negative, not positive, an abstinence from evil not an energetic pursuit of good, "thou shalt not" predominating unduly over "thou shalt”.
- “Thirdly, though the customs be both good as customs, and suitable to him, yet to conform to custom, merely as custom, does not educate or develop in him any of the qualities which are the distinctive endowment of a human being. The human faculties of perception, judgment, discriminative feeling, mental activity, and even moral preference, are exercised only in making a choice. He who does anything because it is the custom makes no choice.” On the next pages Mill goes on to make the argument, that society needs people who do not conform, who with energy follows their own convictions.
- Mill continues to give guidance on meaningful practices - a guidance it would seem to me would be very helpfull for leaders of today: For example, as states must tax, taxing alcohol higher makes sense as alcohol is more likely to have negative effects, however limiting the number of venues who sell alcohol to make it more difficult to access alcohol is paternal and non-sensical, and instead of an outright ban, rather make sales come with restrictions (such as writing down a persons details).
- Also, his thoughts on the school system would benefit today’s system: When education is largely in state hands Mill is worried about the lack of diversity of education. He sees a system where the state only has schools to set the standard and otherwise only offers to pay for schooling for those who otherwise cannot afford it. Tests from early age will ensure that facts are taught. Should a child fail a test the parent will get fined.
- “The deeply rooted conception which every individual even now has of himself as a social being, tends to make him feel it one of his natural wants that there should be harmony between his feelings and aims and those of his fellow-creatures.” Capitalism stymies this seeking of harmony in that it replaces it with a focus on a persons own profit. I find it hard to understand that the present narrative of capitalism is still so rooted in egocentricity, where Mill has so well laid out the human impetus for considering the needs of others.

[Rob Sanek · Rating 3 out of 5]

Listened to the first two hours. There were a few insights from the book where I found myself nodding along with Mill, and these cases were the strong point of Utilitarianism for me. He has an ability to boil things down to their essence at times -- one insight that stuck out to me was this passage from Chapter 4:

The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible, is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible, is that people hear it: and so of the other sources of our experience. ... [The] sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it. ... No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable, except that each person, so far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness.

But Mill also spends a decent chunk of time talking about why this or that portion of his philosophy has been unfairly interpreted or assailed; in these cases, I was reminded of some of the tone that Nassim Nicholas Taleb uses, which is a style of writing I don't personally enjoy.

Broadly, I found the book pretty hard to follow. This is probably due to a combination of the subject matter, the older language, and my decision to listen to it as an audiobook. Perhaps I'd be better served by a more accessible treatment of these ideas.

[Writerdevin · Rating 5 out of 5]

P139: To prevent the State from exercising, through these arrangements, an improper influence over opinions, the knowledge required for passing an examinations (beyond the merely instrumental parts of knowledge, such as languages and their use) should, even in the higher classes of examinations, be confined to facts and positive science exclusively. The examinations on religion, politics, or other disputed topics, should not turn on the truth or falsehood of opinions, but on the matter of fact that such and such an opinion is held, on such grounds, by such authors, or schools, or churches. Under this system, the rising genertion would be no worse off in regard to all disputed truths, than they are at present; they would be brought up either churchmen or dissenter as they now, the State merely taking care that they should be instructed churchmen, or instructed dissenters.

P139: All attempts by the State to bias the conclusions of its citizens on disputed subjects, are evil.

[Francis Cabeza Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Está bastante bien. La gente se equivoca con Mill al ser llamado "liberal" en verdad es uno de los primeros padres de la socialdemocracia

[Shrimoyee Sen · Rating 4 out of 5]

My favorite famous quote from On Liberty that summed it up for me:

“It is not because men's desires are strong that they act ill; it is because their consciouses are weak.”

[Julio Medina · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought utilitarianism was bad. It is. But at least Stuart Mill is not a bad guy

[Grace]

This book feels like an intellectual chew toy bark grrrrr

[Paul Taylor · Rating 2 out of 5]

More for the academic than the casual reader. It's turgid, needs more paragraphs and fewer words. The message gets lost in the welter of words.

[Isaac · Rating 2 out of 5]

A bit dry and common sense at times, but details the theory well.

[Matt · Rating 2 out of 5]

Industrialist rebrand of Christian value ethics

[J.D. Steens · Rating 3 out of 5]

The title of Mill's essay, "On Liberty," promises more than it delivers. In his opening lines, Mill makes it clear that the essay will not engage "The Liberty of the Will" debate (free will, determinism, etc.). Rather, his focus is on a single, practical premise: The sole justification for the exercise of state power to limit the liberty of individuals is self-protection (i.e., prevent harm to others). Mill fills in the rest of this essay in Emerson-like tones. Left unsaid is why "liberty of the individual" is the pre-eminent value, particuarly given the strength of a social (tribal) nature to conform (willingly defer one's liberty) to the group. Implicit in Mill's liberty theme is that all interests and values have equal standing (should not be interfered with unless they harm others), yet this crucial point may be countered in his essay on Utilitarianism where he differentiates between quantitative (values and interests are equal) and qualitative (hierarchy of values, with animal passions and sensations lower than higher cultural and intellectual values). Mill is inclined to believe that humans are more focused on the latter than the former, which may be an optimistic assumption, and this differentiation of liberty's "objectives" triggers the thorny and perhaps fruitless debate about what specifically constitutes "harm" to others. The essay on Utilitarianism is more potent than "On Liberty." The essay on utility clearly articulates a factual basis for ethics. Generally we seek pleasure ("utility") and avoid pain. At the societal level, this translates into an ethic that says we ought to support social rules that promote and protect the happiness (attain pleasure, avoid pain) of all. As a general rule, this is good stuff, particularly when Mill argues that that education should integrally connect individual happiness with the happiness of the whole. Mill strays now and then when he suggests that we are more or less naturally inclined to social harmony and that civilization progresses more and more toward harmony. Generally, though, Mill is on the right track when he says that social pressures provide natural sanctions to keep individual liberty in check, and that the state's power does the same in the form of punishment. Mill's utilitarian philosophy defines Good in terms of individual happiness. While not the lofty definition seen in other philosophies, and perhaps disappointing to many as a result, the virtue of this definition is that it can be solidly grounded in our biology.

[Adam · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is an excellent defense of the first amendment write to freedom of expression. It's also an excellent argument in favor of utilitarian morality. It's probably worth a read if your interested in these areas, but I felt the whole time that I was simply reading things I already believed and felt. If you're pro first amendment and in favor of being decent to your fellow humans, regardless of any differences you might have, this book won't shatter your world view.

It does get interesting when Mill tries to draw the line between an individual's rights and the rights of a society. It's a pretty standard case of your rights ending when they infringe upon mine own. The idea was revolutionary for it's time, and still isn't wholly adopted by the world at large. It's interesting to see a clearly brilliant man fumble through the question of when it's okay for a government to take an action against it's citizenry. It seems to me that Mill wants there to be a clear cut and easy to follow formula, but these things by there nature require a great deal of gray area to work within.

[Tyler · Rating 4 out of 5]

On Liberty -- 5 stars; Utilitarianism -- 3 stars

On Liberty evinces one of the most lucid and sublime deployments of the English language I've read.

You'll need a highlighter while you read these two treatises; the author packs in too many excellent ideas to remember all at once, and his ideas are not to be forgotten.

[Daniela Bullard · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book from John stuart mill is very informal and expands your mind into a bigger view on what's happening in our society and how are laws formed by our government and the people. But explains how Unitarianism and individuality plays a big role in our society. This man was ahead if his time and this was recommended to me to read by a professor.

[Jamie Crawford · Rating 5 out of 5]

Took my time with this book, as it had tonnes of thought-provoking points and issues relevant to modern day life. Very interesting the detailed analysis on what freedom should be, and his opinions on the freedom of thought and speech were especially intriguing

[Joshua · Rating 3 out of 5]

Again, not a beautiful book. We may want to give some attention to a book that can, even for a moment, make it plausibly correct for others to sacrifice you for not only their sole benefit but in the pursuit of happiness.

[John]

nonfiction,philosophy

[Brenden]

On Liberty (Everyman's Library classics) by John Stuart Mill (1992)