Based substantially around the concept of progression, John Stuart Mill pontificates upon the idea of liberty of both the individual and of the state. Liberty as defined by Mill is the “nature and limits of the power of which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual.” From his initial definition of liberty Mills elaborates on liberty by grouping it into three parts. Liberty of thought and opinion, liberty of tastes and pursuits, and the liberty to join with others that share similar opinion to form a common purpose without causing harm to others. The idea of freedom without causing harm to others is somewhat reminiscent of Jean-Jacques Rousseaus idea of pity. Rousseau explains that humans all have a distaste for seeing another human suffering and therefore would only cause harm to another human if it were in the name of their own self preservation. Mill presents this concept in a different manner as a liberty and not a natural right as it was proposed before. However, the concept of liberty throughout this piece of work seems a bit vague.
As the essay continues, Mill discusses the morality of censorship. Mill believes that censorship is inherently wrong. By silencing an opinion, we could be silencing the possible truth. Mill explains that humans are not, in fact, infallible and therefore who can decide what is truth and accurate. In addition, Mill argues that in order to for something to be completely true, this truth must be subject to question. For without being able to answer criticism of an idea, on cannot fully comprehend an idea. This is probably one of the most accurate points in the whole essay for me for many reasons, but most prominently, because of religion. I would never identify myself as a religious person, at least not yet, solely for the fact that I do not feel that I am in a position to properly