On Liberty

Questions About On Liberty

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about On Liberty, please sign up.

Answered Questions (3)

Daniel That seems to contradict Mill's own utilitarianism. Namely, the silencing of one person's opinion would seem to amount to less harm than the silencing…moreThat seems to contradict Mill's own utilitarianism. Namely, the silencing of one person's opinion would seem to amount to less harm than the silencing of all of mankind minus one. Thus if the lack of justification is due to the principle of harm, then Mill seems to be equating two vastly unequal harms (the silencing of one vs. the silencing of all minus one).

Of course we can't say much about the hypothetical example, since Mill doesn't specify what the opinion and contrary opinion are. Generally speaking, people only try to silence opinions that matter. For opinions to matter, they must have at least the potential to change something. Thus the silencing of opinions usually equates to an attempt to stop some sort of change. (less)
Nat I think the essay is pretty plainly written. There are some of the complex sentence structures that you often see it stuff from the 19th century (lots…moreI think the essay is pretty plainly written. There are some of the complex sentence structures that you often see it stuff from the 19th century (lots of semicolons), but overall, it's not really difficult. There are a couple of odd words, and some parts were historical context is handy (one bit that confused me is the "Maine Law", which he mentions late in the book. Turns out it was the specific name of an early alcohol prohibition law). On the whole though, I think most people could read this pretty easily and understand it. (less)
Donna Causey The whole paragraph is: Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement and the means j…moreThe whole paragraph is: Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement and the means justified by actually effecting the end. Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion. Until then, there is nothing for them but implicit obedience to an Akbar or a Charlemagne, if they are so fortunate as to find one. But as soon as mankind have attained the capacity of being guided to their own improvement by conviction or persuasion (a period long since reached in all nations with whom we need here concern ourselves), compulsion, either in direct form or in that of pains and penalties for non-compliance, is no longer admissible as a means to their own good, and justifiable only for the security of others.(less)

About Goodreads Q&A

Ask and answer questions about books!

You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.

See Featured Authors Answering Questions

Learn more