J.S. Mill on Freedom of Thought, Expression and Association

I mentioned in my last blog post, that freedom was the cornerstone of J.S. Mill’s philosophy. So, here, I’d like to begin to expand on J.S. Mill’s concept of freedom a little further by focusing on how to characterise the three fundamental freedoms that underpin J.S. Mill’s philosophy: freedom of thought, expression and association.

I shall draw on an excellent book I’m currently reading called “John Stuart Mill’s Political Philosophy” by Fitzpatrick (2006)¹. I recommend Fitzpatrick’s book as suggested reading for my Mill Philosophy Circle. It makes an important contribution to scholarship on J.S. Mill and it’s fascinating to see how he makes a greater effort than many to put forward a very positive view of J.S. Mill’s philosophical ideas with strong textual evidence to support his claims. He also sets out his fresh take on how to understand Mill by situating his interpretation within Millian scholarship. Fitzpatrick builds on aspects of some scholars’ work to support his view of Mill as arguing coherently and persuasively across his different works. Therefore, he refutes those who see Mill as arguing weakly and inconsistently between his books ‘On Liberty’ (1859) and ‘Utilitarianism’ (1861, 1863).  

Fitzpatrick² maintains that, of all the different freedoms, the central one is freedom of thought out of which come two other fundamental freedoms, namely, freedom of association and expression. Fitzpatrick captures the reason for this brilliantly:

“Freedom of thought would be of little value if one was not free to test one’s ideas in the intellectual marketplace. To develop one’s thought in full it is necessary to subject one’s ideas to the scrutiny of others. In order to do this you must be free to express yourself to others and to be free to associate with others…”³

This means that people need to be allowed to think freely and for themselves and say what they think within the public domain, whether the view is currently popular or not, while allowing others to do the same. To try to discourage this freedom of speech adversely affects both the individual, other people and society in general by limiting their freedom and access to a variety of ideas without which the truth cannot be discovered. The truth is best arrived at when opposing views are allowed to be aired. So the coming together of people to discuss, debate, agree or disagree is fundamental. Social interaction is, therefore, an essential freedom to value and preserve not just in theory but also in practice.

Another key reason why such freedoms, amongst other things, are so vital in society is that they cultivate our mental faculties, without which we’d “deny some important feature of our humanity”⁴. Fitzpatrick supports this with an extract from J.S. Mill⁵:

“He who lets the world, or his own portion of it, choose his plan of life for him, has no need for any other faculty than the ape-like one of imitation. He who chooses his plans for himself, employs all his faculties.”

Mill lists examples of such faculties as “observation”, “reasoning and judgement”, collating information for decision-making, discernment and the strength of character in order for a person to “hold to his deliberate decision”⁶. These need to be cultivated so that people can go beyond a life of activities, such as carrying out tasks dictated to them, that even a robot could manage⁷. Mill wants people to realise that “human nature is ….a tree, which requires to grow and develop itself on all sides”⁸.

In other words, just as a tree that is only developed on one side is lop-sided, so our characters need to be well-rounded rather than excel in some ways but be underdeveloped in other ways, for example, a person who is highly intellectual with numerous qualifications yet has the emotional intelligence of a three year old is not well-rounded. Instead, we should strive to make good use of the intelligence we possess and be capable of using our faculties to decide a life for ourselves that will make us happy, rather than allowing others to coerce us into not fulfilling our dreams and desires.

¹Fitzpatrick, J.R. (2006), “John Stuart Mill’s Political Philosophy”, Continuum Studies in British Philosophy, Continuum

²ibid p65

³ibid

⁴ibid p71

⁵ibid p71-2, p82 quoted by Fitzpatrick as J.S. Mill 1859 chapter III paragraph 4.    

⁶ibid p71

⁷ibid p72

⁸ibid