For centuries people have discussed the topic of freedom and the limitations it has on society. Philosophers and politicians have argued for more or less independence for as long as formal governments have been put in place. One such theorist was British philosopher and teacher, John Stuart Mills. Through the early 1800s, Mills wrote many essays regarding people’s everyday decisions and how they affect freedom for society as a whole. Ultimately, Mills concludes that the only actions that can be prevented are ones that create harm towards others or one’s self. This concept is now known officially as the “Mills Harm Theory.” This theory of personal independence closely relates to that of ‘Utility’ and self-benefit. Through these two theories, Mills also discusses the idea of harm vs offense. Many philosophical concepts appear to be sound on paper but do not have the grounds to hold up in real life, this is the case for Mills Harm Theory. In an ideal community and environment Mills’ theory of utility and freedom would be successful, however, it would never function properly in today’s society.
If a person’s actions affect them and no one else in a negative way, then no force or government should be able to stop one from doing what they want. This is the primary argument behind ‘Mills Harm Theory’. From discussing this concept, it comes across as very peaceful as it does not dictate who or what has the power to restrict freedom from others. However, this principle of seemingly unlimited freedom is much more complex than just the considerations of harm towards others. While Mills does an excellent job of selling his theory upfront, he does not explain how it all comes together. In a world with so many different cultures, backgrounds, and ideologies, everyone has a different definition of ‘harm.’ This alone would be among the biggest problems in Mills’ theory. Mills does acknowledge that each person may have different boundaries of ‘harm’ than others, from this he attempts to distinguish harm from offense. Most simply, Mills argues that harm is physical, while being offended is mostly mental and emotional. This idea makes sense but raises even more questions than before. Who or what organization would be responsible for determining harm towards others? Who decides whether someone is hurt or simply offended? And for a system that revolves around nearly complete freedom and independence, this creates an immense amount of power for whoever decides what is right and wrong. From this alone, this opens an opportunity for a society to turn very biased and corrupt. It is ironic that today we live in the freest nation in the world because of the many laws and legislation that we operate around, but a utilitarian society with hardly any rules would quickly turn into the wild west. Total freedom and independence sounds so peaceful and enjoyable until you consider who regulates the system. More independence, in many cases, means more chaos as well.
The concept of utility is closely intertwined into Mill’s harm theory and idea of freedom. The principle of Utility is choosing any action that promotes the most pleasure either for one’s self or the most people. There are many flaws in this theory as well, such as the violent or harmful acts that would be justified because of the ‘greater good.’ Mills uses the theory of utility in his vision of freedom as it does support independence and the pursuit of individual happiness. However, relating back to the Harm Theory, this gives an opportunity to ill-advised acts done in the majority. Anytime that people are given the total freedom to pursue their own individual ambitions and desires without firm boundaries, there is the potential for violence and war. This arises because very few people on this planet share the exact same interests and goals. The real problem occurs when two or more people have ambitions that directly conflict with another. In a society with law and order there are many things that prevent aggression or harm in this situation. However, in an environment that has no established rules or limitations on freedom, there is nothing to stop people from taking whatever measures they truly desire. In a community such as that, humans would be no more civil than wild animals, only seeking what they innately desire and want. A society with no limitations, law, or moral code other than not to harm others or oneself will certainly fall to those who do not choose to obey. A system that is reliant on every person confiding to the same rules with no enforcement has no way of regulating those who do not.
The argument for freedom and personal liberty has been an ongoing debate since ancient times. Great philosophers, such as John Stuart Mills, have attempted through the years to create a theory that best accommodates a happy and virtuous life. Focusing on net happiness, therefore being virtuous, Mills focused his theory of freedom around the principle of utility. Utilitarianism and Mills Theory of Harm are closely related in that they both support a system in which people pursue what makes them the happiest. The concept of simply pursuing only what makes you happy in life does in fact sound virtuous, however, this way of living is not supported by the democratic government that we live in today. In today’s society it is viewed to be virtuous and commendable to earn the best pleasures in life, even if that means struggling to get there. We live in a society that revolves around a firm central government, and one that constitutes many rules and stipulations to how we may use our freedom. We live in the freest nation in the world, and this is maintained not by the lack of regulations but rather clear boundaries that everyone abides by. The lack of clarity and regulations is what would ultimately lead to the downfall of John Mills’ total utilitarian society.