On Liberty

Mill offers commentary on the nature of government and on different systems of rule. He ultimately advocates a particular type of government. What does Mill’s ideal government look like? How does it function? Would you want to live in a society with Mill’s prescribed system?

Mill’s political philosophies make basic assumptions about the nature of humankind. What assumptions do you think are most foundational to his ideas? With which assumptions might critics of Mill take the most issue?

The three central chapters in Mill’s essay discuss “Liberty of Thought and Discussion,” “Individuality, as One of the Elements of Well-being,” and “the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual.” Which one of these chapters do you find the most persuasive? Why? Is one easier to understand than the others? Does one feel more applicable to your own life than the others do?

Which one of the “Applications” that Mill outlines in his final chapter seems the most logical to you? What about the strangest?

One of Mill’s main goals for society is progress. What do you think he means by “progress”? To what extent does Mill’s functional definition of “progress” match your own?

Mill references history in the arguments that he makes. For example, he offers an account of Emperor Marcus Aurelius in one chapter. Why does Mill include examples from history—particularly history outside of England? To what extent is Mill’s argument an historical argument?

Mill occasionally discusses children and parents. How would you describe Mill’s views on the liberties of both parents of young children and children themselves? Are these special cases, or do parents of young children and children have the same rights and restrictions as everyone else in society?

Where might a critic of Mill identify inconsistencies or contradictions in Mill’s ideas expressed in On Liberty? (Hint: think about the theories stated in the three middle chapters alongside the “applications.”)