Rousseau Versus Mill
Essay Preview: Rousseau Versus Mill
Report this essay
The term “civil or social liberties” is one that garners a lot of attention and focus from both Rousseau and Mill, although they tackle the subject from slightly different angles. Rousseau believes that the fundamental problem facing peoples capacity to leave the state of nature and enter a society in which their liberty is protected is the ability to “find a form of association that defends and protects the person and goods of each associate with all the common force, and by means of which each one, uniting with all, nevertheless obeys only himself and remains as free as before” (Rousseau 53). Man is forced to leave the state of nature because their resistance to the obstacles faced is beginning to fail (Rousseau 52). Mill does not delve as far back as Rousseau does and he begins his mission of finding a way to preserve peoples liberty in an organized society by looking to order of the ancient societies of Greece, Rome and England (Mill 5). These societies “consisted of a governing One, or a governing tribe or caste, who derived their authority from inheritance or conquest” (Mill 5). This sort of rule was viewed as necessary by the citizens but was also regarded as very dangerous by Mill as the lives of citizens were subject to the whims of the governing power who did not always have the best interests of everyone in mind. Mill proposes that the only time “power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (Mill 14) and this is one of the fundamental building blocks of Mills conception of liberty. Rousseau, on the other hand, places more importance on the concept of a civic liberty and duty whose virtue comes from the conformity of the particular will with the general will.
“Man was/is born free, and everywhere he is chains” (46) is one of Rousseaus most famous quotes from his book. He is trying to state the fact that by entering into the restrictive early societies that emerged after the state of nature, man was being enslaved by authoritative rulers and even “one who believes himself to be the master of others is nonetheless a greater slave than they” (Rousseau 46). However, Rousseau is not advocating a return to the state of nature as he knows that would be next to impossible once man has been exposed to the corruption of society, but rather he is looking for a societal arrangement that would preserve mans liberty and even provide greater benefits than were found in Rousseaus idealistic vision of the state of nature. By joining civil society and becoming a part of the general will, man is enriching his actions with a morality and rationality that was previously lacking. As he states in Book I, Chapter VIII, “although in this state he deprives himself of several advantages given to him by nature, he gains such great onesÐthat changed him from a stupid, limited animal into an intelligent being and a man” (Rousseau 56). What man posses in nature is an unlimited physical freedom to pursue everything that tempts him, although this is viewed by Rousseau as almost an enslavement towards ones own instincts. In a civil state man is benefited by “substituting justice for instinct in his behaviour and giving his actions the morality they previously lacked” (Rousseau 54). In acting in accordance with the general will man is granted the most important form of all freedoms, civil freedom.
Freedom of individuality is seen as the essential form of freedom according to Mill. The freedom of thought and speech, discussed in Chapter 2, do play a pivotal role in ensuring freedom, however, they are viewed more as a means to an end rather than being something that should be pursued for its own good. The freedom of individuality is essential for human progress and development and “it is only the cultivation of individuality which produces, or can produce, well-developed human beings” (Mill 70). It is this stressed importance on the importance of individuality that puts Mill at odds with Rousseau. Rousseau contends that surrendering to the general will be bring the greatest happiness and benefits for everyone as this is what is in everybodys greatest interest. Mill might be tempted to argue that there are aspects of the general will that citizens should be fearful of. One of the forces that Mill identifies as the most stifling towards liberty is the force of the popular opinion. Clearly, some sort of protection against tyranny of the magistrate is necessary but not enough as “there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices” (Mill 9). Mill is noticeably placing more emphasis on the individual aspects of freedom as opposed to Rousseau who is more in support of a freedom that only can only be attained through the forfeiting of some these individual liberties in order to become a part of the collective and achieve his version of civil freedom, the most important of all liberties. Diversity of opinions is a highly valued societal good for Mill and he believes this to be an important path to revealing the truths and securing liberty.
In ensuring people will enjoy the liberty they deserve, Mill leaves a lot more room for government intervention than Rousseau does in his version of the best society. This can be mainly attributed to the fact that Rousseau seems to have more faith in people and sees them as inherently good as their only source of evil was the corrupting forces of the early societies man entered into. Mill seemed to have a lot more difficulty in adhering to this idea of the inherent goodness of man. The fallibility of society is a very important component of Mills argument for freedom of speech and opinion and from this fallibility stems the idea that the government is needed to step in to prevent people from freely following their self-interests which could be potentially harmful to others. Mill mistrusts unrestricted men and a general theme recurs throughout his work that if man if left to his own devices he will pursue his self-interests, even at the cost of harming others. This opens the door for governments to interfere in peoples lives and actions in the case that they are causing harm to someone else. As he states in Chapter 1, “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member