Individuality, as One of the Elements of Well-Being
In his paper, Mill (1859) stated that democratic nations would replace monarchies and tyrannies of the past. He also believed that a new problem would arise within a government of the people for the people. Mill worried that the will of the people would become the government’s will, which could endanger democracy and self-development of individuals if the government were to suppress the lifestyles and opinions of minorities (Turner, 2014). Mill suggested what philosophers today call his “harm principle” to address this danger. Mill’s principle would prohibit majorities from interfering with any individual’s liberties unless that individual’s liberties infringed on others.
Mill views individuality as the core of self-cultivation. However, a fundamental problem visible in society is that individuality is not valued and is not considered essential to well-being. Instead, the majority feel its practice should be acceptable by all. Mill argues that while people in the cumulative knowledge of human experience should be educated as children, they should exercise their rights to view human experiences as they see fit in adulthood (Ladenson, 1977). He puts significant importance on making choices, and not just embracing practices without question. He argues that people who make choices use all their human faculties, and their desires and impulses lead to their character development.
Mill writes that it is likely that so much individuality will occur in the early stages of society. But the risk now is the stifling of desires and impulses. As people grow their personality, they become more valuable to themselves and, therefore, more useful to others. Then Mill moves to the second part of his debate, how people who exercise their individuality benefit others. Individuality is worthwhile, and people might learn something from exercising their rights. While genius is rare, it is also true that genius can only breathe freely in an atmosphere of independence. Most people tend not to see the importance of originality and usually label genius as mediocrity (Hansson, 2015). Mill argues against this trend, claiming everyone should understand what originality brings to the world.
Also, Mill argues that, unlike the Middle Ages, the 19th century tends to undermine the individual and promote mediocrity, connecting this trend with the democratization of culture and government. We need to make a deliberate effort to fight this development (Janíčko and Janíčko, 2014). There’s no standard on how to live life best. If a person is adequately developed, then it is because they are his own choices for how to live life best. People need different atmospheres to grow and achieve their potential, and a healthy environment needs to encourage people to follow more than one trend.
Personal and social change, freedom, and autonomy are essential. To see the dissimilarities of people is crucial in learning about one’s weaknesses. Diversity also lets us know the potential for a mixture of various people’s positive traits. In contrast, forced conformity keeps people from learning from one another. This despotism of tradition keeps us from progressing, and that it’s the sheer variety of lifestyles and paths that make us more liberal.
References
Hansson, S., 2015. Mill’s Circle(s) of Liberty. Social Theory and Practice, 41(4), pp.734-749.
Janíčko, M. and Janíčko, P., 2014. Utilitarianism According to John Stuart Mill. Acta Oeconomica Pragensia, 22(6), pp.90-97.
Ladenson, R., 1977. Mill’s Conception of Individuality. Social Theory and Practice, 4(2), pp.167-182.
Turner, P., 2014. “Harm” and Mill’s Harm Principle. Ethics, 124(2), pp.299-326.