The Individual Is Supreme

“ The Individual is Supreme”

In “On Liberty”, John Stuart Mill passionately upholds a revolutionary stance on the priority of the individual in any given society, surprisingly a democratic society as well. In the sense that history has proven through previous encounters with monarchial rule, clearly, how the dominence of government can strip its citizens of their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the most essential quality known to man. This depicts a community forced to live in conditions in which a select few, or a supreme figure, decides based on their or his or her own beliefs and opinions what is best for the entire population. As time progressed the evolution of the representative democracy, a form of government that places power in the hands of the people, evolved and made the goal of minimizing pain and maximizing the pleasure of the majority more attainable. Although Mill became more inclined to a democratic system, he articulates his concern of how the “tyranny of the majority” in a democracy could potentially coerce the minority.

Thus according to Mill, the only way to fully execute, or produce the most profit bearing democratic society is through the proper utility, not the hindrance, of each individual’s inalienable rights, mainly freedom of speech.

Inalienable rights generally refers to an individual’s moral claim to freedom of action. They can be described as something that is naturally intended and available for all rational beings. These rights remain with the individual with or without the exhibition of government. In “On Liberty”, Mill specifically defines five major components of inalienable rights. First the inward domain of consciousness which is basically a person’s

Pg. 2

right to reason and rationale. Second, the liberty of thought and feeling on all subjects practical , scientific, moral, or theological. This shows that, each individual has the right to take a stand based on their own views or morale. Third, the liberty of tastes and pursuits. This refers to an individual’s right to choose his or her own route to prosper and reach happiness suitable for his or her own life, as long as it does not interfere or inflict harm on another. Fourth, the freedom to unite for any reason with the exclusion of harming another. This shows that, citizens of a community can come together collectively to exchange and share diverse ideas and states of mind. Finally the most controversal, Mill strongly supports the individual’s right to absolute freedom of speech, not excluding the necessity of limitations, based on its ability to insult or harm others. Mill completely supports the notion that all ideas are necessary to reach true common ground. For example, Mill states: “For if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility”. It is apparent that all information, regardless of its validity or soundness, is crucial to approaching truth. Thus all interest and opinions of that community has worth, even if it appears to erroneous or irrational.Therefore, the distribution and transferring of various arguments, opinions, beliefs, and ideas known to citizens in a society sustains the life of a democracy. It is through these collection of thoughts, of each individual, that mental stability of a democracy is obtained. It presents each member in society the opportunity to voice their personal issues, interests, and concerns. Once this has occurred, the people are capable of discerning what policies are acceptable or unacceptable to them. Most importantly, through dissimilar explantions and theories the entire population has a greater chance of stimulating truth.

Pg. 3

However Stanley Fish, a renown philiosopher states that Mill’s position on free speech is somewhat flawed. He mentions that Mill admits that there should be some limitation on freedom of speech due to its capacity to cause some hurt or misfortune to others. Fish considers this alone to be a “ red flag” on his statements. Fish that there is no such thing a free speech. He makes a point that it is simply esteemed articulation relative to certain value. Whereas Mill strongly feels that it is the duty of government to allow individuals the right to express exactly how they feel.

According to Mill, democracy, like that of alternate forms of government, imposes the “tyranny of the majority” on the minority. It is apparent that there is never the