J. S. Mill, Individual Liberty, and Social Influence

John Stuart Mill championed individual liberty, emphasizing that people should have the freedom to evaluate their choices and act based on their judgments. He argues that liberty yields broad benefits for individuals and society, so it deserves protection from attempts to restrict it.

Mill wrote about the relation of social influence and individual liberty. He stressed the importance of both processes to humanity. Mill helps us see that social influence is not inherently opposed to liberty; the central question is whether influence expands or constrains another person’s ability to judge and act for themselves.

This article uses the idea of influence permissiveness to extend Mill’s framework. It asks how institutions can, in a world of influences, protect free choice while reducing harm to others.

Types of Influence and their Impact on Liberty

I will refer to the concept of permissiveness to capture a type of influence central to Mill’s concern: how much genuine freedom the situation offers a person to accept, reject, or modify a proposal. Permissiveness is reflected in a combination of several situational factors, which may be shaped by the source of influence. These include the severity of consequences, such as social exclusion, career setbacks, incarceration, injury, or death, expected to result from free thought and the expressing of ideas deviating from orthodoxy; the availability of escape if the negative consequences materialize (having an alternative job lined-up if you get fired); the source’s power to impose the consequences; and the source’s likelihood of retaliating. Together, these factors would determine the person’s level of meaningful agency. Higher levels of permissiveness allow greater agency; higher levels of restrictiveness allow less agency.

Frequently mentioned forms of influence, arranged here from more permissive to more restrictive, are:

Persuasion: Reasons and relevant information regarding a proposal are supplied, alternatives are acknowledged, and any adverse consequences of free choice are minor.

Selective or manipulative influence: Information is incomplete or one-sided, deceptive techniques may be used, or disagreement may bring penalties unrelated to the quality of one’s work.

Undue social pressure: Noncompliance risks exclusion from essential relationships, retaliation, or serious reputational or financial harm.

Coercion: Force, legal penalties, or other credible threats leave no reasonable alternatives.

Mill treats restraint as an evil unless strong reason exists for the imposition. In matters that primarily concern the individual, he opposes legal coercion and oppressive social pressure; prevention of harm to others is his principal justification for interference.

The Millian Strategy: Treat Liberty as the Default

Mill argues that essential benefits flow from liberty. He sees the strong defence of liberty as a societal duty.

In regard to when and how to apply influence while taking into account liberty concerns, there are two principles of relevance:

First, according to Mill’s harm principle, apply restrictive influence if the conduct someone might choose could hurt others. An example of this is the criminal law. It prohibits all sorts of harmful conduct.

The harm in question would have to exceed what could be termed a tolerance threshold. In Mill’s view, trying to prevent someone’s behaviour because it violates a prevailing custom or hurts someone’s feelings is unjustified. In applying Mill today, we still need to decide what level of harm is serious enough to justify intervention.

Second, a practical guideline I draw from Mill’s focus on liberty is the “help principle.” It involves easing unnecessary limits and shaping conditions that promote open expression. For example, secret ballots in modern life can protect voters from retaliation and pressure to conform.

The main point is to pursue liberty, limiting it only when open choice might cause significant harm.

What Makes Liberty so Valuable?

What, in Mill’s view, renders individual liberty essential for humankind and therefore vital to protect? It contributes to well-being at both the individual and societal levels.

The Individual Level

Liberty creates the opportunity for individual betterment and well-being by encouraging what Mill termed experiments in living: trying different ways of life to discover what brings effectiveness and meaning.

Individuals, when given the freedom to think and act, can determine their own optimal direction by aligning their choices with their unique knowledge, skills, preferences, needs, and circumstances. For example, a young person may select a career path that reflects their individual attributes, aspirations, and expected life situation rather than following trends.

Not conducting experiments in living, relying instead on existing plans suggested in one’s social milieu, would be less fulfilling.

Modern research helps explain why opportunities for self-directed choice can matter, indicating possible effects on effectiveness and happiness. With regard to effectiveness, persons would acquire the things they value and develop the skills necessary for further such attainments.¹ In regard to feeling fulfilled, the person would gain a heightened sense of self-efficacy and agency,² feelings of optimism and purpose,³ increased resilience,⁴ and commitment to the belief that hard work is important in achieving one’s goals.⁵

The Group Level

According to Mill, liberty strengthens society by advancing knowledge. When people enjoy the freedom to conduct experiments in living, they generate ideas that would not emerge from simple conformity. This process improves understanding in three ways:

First, the opinion being suppressed may be true;

Second, it may contain part of the truth missing from the prevailing view;

Third, even if the prevailing view is wholly true, it becomes a “dead dogma” if people do not encounter and answer objections.

Research that bears on some of J. S. Mill’s notions regarding the societal benefits of liberty tends toward support. Democracy, where there tends to be greater freedom than in nondemocratic systems, including the capacity to influence the system itself,⁶ is associated with a large number of beneficial effects.⁷ Relationships are evident for economic development,⁸ health,⁹ human capital,¹⁰ institutional quality,¹¹ subjective well-being,¹² and science.¹³ The evidence is substantially more complicated for crime and for some measures of educational quality.

Democracy versus non-democracy should be seen as an amalgam of factors, with various forms of freedom being one component. Although democracy tends to foster several types of freedom, particular freedoms may be restricted even within democratic systems. For example, there might be freedom to elect the government while freedom of speech or other civil liberties are restricted.

It is revealing, therefore, to examine the relationships between specific types of freedom and their corresponding outcomes. A case in point concerns academic freedom and its association with scientific production. Science exemplifies the kind of interplay between mutual influence and free expression that Mill considered highly desirable. Academic freedom is significantly associated with both the quantity and quality of scientific output.¹⁴

An important additional factor in all these assessments is the provision of resources necessary to support the activity in question.¹⁵ For example, one might be free to perform leukemia research, but if one’s hospital cannot provide the necessary laboratory facilities, that freedom has limited practical value. Hence, rather than freedom per se, a more apt concept is effective freedom: freedom to act in a meaningful way within a context that provides the relevant societal resources and supports.

In sum, Mill views liberty as essential because experiments in living foster an individual’s efficacy and sense of meaning. At the group level, such freedom brings potential truths and partial truths into view.

Designing Conditions of Liberty

How might liberty be expanded? The first principle of defending liberty, inspired by Mill’s writings, I term directed effort. If someone is serious about securing liberty, focusing mental energy on that goal is essential. This may also require altering the physical setting. At times, inventiveness is necessary.

To encourage reporting on crimes without fear of retribution, Crime Stoppers programs allowed citizens to submit reports anonymously. Someone had to conceive of this method at some point. Implementation required infrastructure, funding, and management. It is notable that this program was not established until 1976. Someone had to take the initiative.¹⁶

Several patterns describe how influence and liberty might interact. In some cases, applying Mill’s principles is relatively straightforward. In others, a degree of directed effort is necessary.

Instance 1: Remove restrictive influences. If unbridled choice causes no major social harm, do not limit the freedom to act. Aim either to avoid interference or clear any barriers that restrict choice.

For example, black men were once barred from playing Major League Baseball. Because the restriction on their freedom of employment relied on prejudice and convention rather than defensible reasons, Mill would view it as unjustified. Indeed, the “colour-barrier” in major league baseball was officially broken when Jackie Robinson started for the Brooklyn Dodgers on April 15, 1947. Players of all races have played in the major leagues since then.

Instance 2: Blend influence and liberty. This is a version of Instance 1. Freedom and pronounced influence can interact if influence stays open rather than limiting. A key example is collaborative problem-solving, a process essential for social progress (see the Locke blog on this website). People may be invited to speak openly while offering and weighing ideas for refining what is proposed. Freedom and influence work in tandem here in a winnowing process: participants are encouraged to share their views and yield to reasonable improvements. Any shift after suggestions should be selected freely, without pressure or force.

Instance 3: Use justified restrictions alongside voluntary supports. When a behavioral choice creates unacceptable danger to others, it is prohibited. Impaired driving illustrates this, being both legally banned and socially condemned for its direct, severe harm. Society uses various strategies to address impaired driving, including laws, social pressures, educational campaigns showing consequences, and promoting alternatives such as designated drivers and free taxi services. This reflects a comprehensive approach to reducing such dangerous behavior.

Instance 4: Situational strategy. Facilitating individual choice is often desirable, yet limits remain necessary. A situational strategy might allow freedom in certain contexts while applying restrictions elsewhere. Reaching a solution may demand effort, commitment, and capital investment.

In Germany, certain stretches of the Autobahn have no speed limits, allowing drivers to select their pace freely. Other routes impose limits for safety. If high speeds on the Autobahn feel daunting, drivers may opt for paths with set restrictions, such as local roads or highways with limits. A driver might travel at 130 km/h on a restricted highway rather than pushing boundaries on the Autobahn.

Mill argues that protecting individual liberty benefits both the individual and society. While expanding personal freedom may be simple in some cases, securing it can require effort, cooperation, imagination, and resources in more complex situations. He stresses that providing choice is essential and should be pursued in society as a matter of course.

Conclusion

The promotion of individual liberty invites an analysis of how social influence should interact with such a goal. In the above, with considerable help from J. S. Mill, I propose that good institutions do not eliminate influence; they make room for influence that informs, invites, and protects judgment rather than punishing dissent.

Mill noted a pattern of excessive social control over personal conduct. His recommendation to prioritize individual liberty seeks to offset this impulse toward regulation. When restrictions are harsh, both individuals and society endure harm; when freedom prevails, there is opportunity for individual progress and social development.

Questions for the Reader

J.S. Mill worried that societies often try to control conduct without first asking whether control is necessary, resulting in unwarranted restrictions on liberty. Do you feel this is the case in today’s world? What are some examples?
Do you think artificial intelligence will make us more or less likely to pursue experiments in living?
What social and political conditions make dissent, experimentation, and independent judgment easier or harder?
When does social influence help people exercise independent judgment, and when does it become pressure that undermines it?