Stuart Mill Individuality

John Stuart Mill was the original punk. Now, before I lose you with the absurd image of Mill with a blue mohawk consider this, the punk subculture that emerged in the mid-1970s was characterized by an anti-establishment attitude with a vehement focus on individuality. This is not accusing Mill of being an anarchist, as so many punks were. It is apparent from his writings that he very much recognized and advocated for the necessity of a governing entity. It was, I believe, in his opinion, that government’s role was to infringe as little as possible upon the personal liberties of its citizens; while at the same time protecting these liberties from the infringement by other members of the society upon one another. For, according to Mill, …show more content…
That is because customs, which may have once had meaning and served a purpose, quickly lose any significance with repetitive, mindless participation. Mill believed that the ongoing practice by the masses would lead to a mentally stagnant society. In chapter 3 in On Liberty, he depicts three cases that illustrate why custom can be detrimental to humanity. In the first, practitioners of a custom may have some evidence, possibly through their own experiences, that support their involvement. However, it is possible that their interpretation of their experiences were too narrow or interpreted incorrectly to begin with. Second, these interpretations may be correct, however, unsuitable for that person to participate in the custom and still be true to their soul. The last case, and maybe the most important, is that both the interpretation is correct and it is suitable for the person to participate in the custom. But, if that person doesn’t come to this conclusion on their own, rather they are doing something for the sake of doing it, they are not exercising their faculties and the value of the custom is lost upon them. Custom is the enemy of liberty; it is only in environments that promote liberty that one can improve upon their character to obtain …show more content…
A Millian society falls somewhere between “Complete Control” and “Anarchy in the U.K.,” and probably nearer to the latter. Remember, Mill is not an anarchist, but a libertarian. It is his view that it is the government’s duty to step aside and society’s duty to allow for free expression of one’s own life, or in his words “experiments of living.” Of course this is only permitted to the extent that it doesn’t impede on others’ liberties. Experiments of living are, in essence, just as they sound: like a scientist examines a test tube to either discover new information or disprove old truths, we must do this with our way of life. Mill encourages the full utilization of our mental and moral abilities to draw our own conclusions. Just as we need to exercise our muscles to strengthen our physical selves, we must exercise our decision-making facilities to strengthen our moral character. Unique from one person to the next, character is the result of observing, reasoning, and actively making a decision based on what is aligned with your soul. Mill discusses truth in the second chapter of On Liberty, saying that it must be under constant scrutiny and open to discussion. If we no longer question something and accept it only at face value, it loses its meaning for us. The same goes for living. Our lives can lose their meaning if we don’t continue to explore different ways to live