Mankind has always fought for Liberty and Freedom, a topic debated for decades. The meaning of freedom and its boundaries have been explored by two great English philosophers, John Locke and John Stuart Mill. These men aimed to uncover the mysteries of Liberty and Freedom and highlight their importance. This essay will examine John Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government” and John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty and Other Essays”.
This essay aims to compare and contrast Locke’s ideology on Liberty and Freedom with that of Mill. John Locke, a prominent philosopher in Europe during the late 17th century, authored one of the most significant books of the 18th century, The Second Treatise of Government. Locke’s work primarily opposes authoritarianism, both at the individual level and within institutions such as government and church. On an individual level, Locke encourages the use of reason to seek truth instead of blindly accepting authority or succumbing to superstition.
He suggests that we should align our agreement with propositions according to the evidence supporting them. When considering institutions, it is crucial to differentiate between their rightful and wrongful roles and do the same for their use of force. The upside of Locke’s opposition to authority is that he contends that employing reason to comprehend truth and establish legitimate institutional functions will enhance the well-being of both individuals and society, encompassing material and spiritual welfare.
Locke’s core argument is that individuals are equal and endowed with inherent rights when living in a state of nature, free from external governance. In his work “The Second Treatise of Government,” he posits that humans are guided by these natural rights, allowing them to live in complete freedom. According to John Locke, all individuals are inherently situated in “a state of perfect freedom.” It is essential for individuals to experience freedom and lack restrictions within society. Locke asserts that humans exist in a natural state, characterized by unbridled liberty that is solely regulated by the laws of nature. He emphasizes that the ability to possess wealth and property is contingent on maintaining freedom.
According to Locke, we willingly enter into a social contract to ensure our liberty, life, and property. If the government fails to protect these rights, we have the right to revolt. Locke believed that individuals are governed by natural rights and that we should not harm ourselves because we belong to God. In his philosophy, the government holds legislative power, society is made up of individuals, and the people have the right to overthrow the legislator. Locke’s ideas of liberty and the social contract are connected to the concept of private property. He also distinguished between natural liberty in a state of nature where there is complete freedom.
Government was established due to the human tendency toward social conflict. It is through a free contract among individuals in society that liberty under law is established. It is impossible for a person to enslave themselves to another, either by contract or consent. Freedom is not subjected to the arbitrary will of another. The purpose of the law is to preserve and expand freedom. Man willingly enters into a contract for their safety and peace, thus giving legitimacy to law and government. Locke also introduces the important notion of property, encompassing physical possessions and life itself.
The concern of individuals should be to guarantee property. Locke argued on behalf of middle-class landowners against the King’s arbitrary power. He believed that Parliament, as a collection of interested and rational landowners, would uphold justice and maintain peace to protect property. Locke also trusted Parliament to safeguard religious liberty. Although Locke’s arguments for liberty remain relevant today, he recognized the need to choose between liberty and equality. Particularly appealing was Locke’s contention that any government not embracing the principles of freedom would lose its legitimacy.
In essence, Locke’s model comprises a civil state where an executive power safeguards the property and liberties of a people who rely on and support it. The government serves the people’s welfare and can be substituted or toppled if it fails to work towards this fundamental objective. On the other hand, Mill states that his intention in writing about liberty is to assert a single principle that should govern society, which is commonly referred to as the harm principle.
The well-being of individuals, whether physical or moral, does not justify societal interference. No one can be forced to act or abstain from acting solely because it is believed to be in their best interest or would make them happier. Mill developed his understanding of human nature by studying the works of the great poets. These romantic poets highlighted the significance of emotions in human existence, which opposed the prevailing belief in the 18th Century that reason was the most important aspect of a person’s life. Reason was the common means by which people comprehended the world around them.
Rousseau stood out due to his unique perspective. Unlike Hobbes, who believed that Reason was the essence of Enlightenment philosophy and allowed us to understand the laws of nature for achieving peace, Rousseau saw Reason as a way to transcend the chaos of emotions and live a more enlightened life. However, Romanticism emerged as a response to this rationalistic approach, as it emphasized the importance of emotions. Reason was viewed as cold and devoid of feeling, while romantic poets inspired thinkers like Mill to consider utility in a broader sense, taking into account not only logic but also the emotional aspects of human motivation.
In his writings, Mill discusses the distinction between our desires in the present moment and our interest in the continued development of human personality. He specifically highlights our species’ interests in progress and focuses on human potential. These ideas are reflected in his concept of liberty. Mill also presents his own theory on Utilitarianism, which emphasizes the principle of achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number. By happiness, he specifies that he is referring to pleasure and the absence of pain.
Unhappiness is the opposite. It is pain and the lack of pleasure. However, it is important to note that this definition of happiness is different from Aristotle’s. Aristotle believed that pleasure is the realization of human potential and the fulfillment of human capabilities. Interestingly, Mill’s perspective seems to align more closely with the ancient philosophers. His argument somewhat resembles Plato’s argument in the republic. Mill asserts that individuals who have experienced both higher and lower pleasures are the only ones capable of making a judgment between them. This idea echoes Plato’s notion that only philosophers have truly experienced all types of pleasure, which corresponds to Mill’s concept of higher and lower pleasures.
According to Mill, animal pleasures are considered lower pleasures because they are solely derived from satisfying physical desires. However, Mill argues that individuals who have experienced both lower and higher pleasures would prefer the latter. He states that intelligent and educated individuals would not willingly choose to be foolish or ignorant, and those who are emotionally aware and conscious would not prioritize their own selfishness and material possessions over higher pleasures. Even if one were to believe that fools are more content with their lives than they are with theirs, Mill presents this as an empirical claim, suggesting that it is a valid question to pose to oneself.
Bentham was a radical democrat in his time, believing that all preferences should be treated equally. He argued that the majority should have the authority to determine what is important. On the other hand, Mill asserted that every person possesses a sense of dignity and that as long as we value our dignity, we cannot desire anything that goes against it. Mill’s concept of dignity is not about reputation but rather about one’s sense of self. It refers to the value one places on oneself, which enables a person to feel proud and satisfied with their actions.
According to Mill, not many individuals truly dedicate themselves to higher pleasures. Each person is inherently aware of their own worth and dignity. However, societal influences can easily diminish this sense of dignity. Mill strongly believes that we should strive to become individuals who possess noble character. His utilitarianism aligns with the classical idea of character, which is also emphasized by philosophers like Plato and Aristotle. Both ancient thinkers are concerned with the development of a noble character and the type of individuals we are or will become.
For those aspiring to their lowest desires, life becomes meaningless. Instead, we should all aim for our greatest passions. Locke believes that human nature transcends time and place, with a universal equality and the freedom to act as one pleases. The state of nature is constant, its activities unchanging. Locke stresses that the state of nature is not a state of conflict, but rather, it is through the natural order that war leads to the establishment of governments.
