In the essay On Freedom by John Stuart Mill, Mill states that individual freedom can be limited by only one thing: the self-preservation of society and other individuals. To this end, man must retain the freedom to act and think as he chooses, without repressing ideas or opinions, as long as this does not harm others. Mill states: “The only purpose for which humanity is entitled, individually or collectively, to interfere with the freedom of action of any of its members, is self-protection…[its] good, physical or moral, not is a sufficient guarantee.” (p. 14) Mill justifies this theory as a solution to two types of tyranny: the tyranny of the majority, in which the many persecute the few, and the tyranny of public opinion, in which society tries to impose a set of values to everyone. Although Mill permits all actions that do not directly harm others, he fully supports laws that penalize inaction where the action would prevent harm to another. In his utilitarian theory, he argues that the utility of freedom is guaranteed by its benefit to humanity: “I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the broadest sense, founded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being” (p. 15). For Mill, freedom – based on the recognition of man's fallibility and the right to self-preservation – generates individuality, which in turn leads to the improvement of individual character and society as a whole. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Mill defends his belief that all opinions should be heard by stating that individuals cannot limit the expression of their opinions simply because it is harmful to society and to themselves. Supporting this is the axiom of human fallibility. Since man is fallible, a silenced opinion, however scandalous, may in fact be true, or at least contain slight elements of truth, since the closest form to perfection is usually found between popular opinion and dissent . Mill states: “We can never be sure that the opinion we are trying to stifle is a false opinion.” (p. 22) To support this claim, Mill invokes Socrates as evidence that people can misjudge even the most competent and well-intentioned minds. Mill claims that any contemporary of Socrates would have been shocked by his earth-shattering theology, but as we now know, his contributions to philosophy are colossal. Therefore, the only method of correction is discussion and experience. Furthermore, truth must be tested and questioned to prevent it from losing its meaning. “If [an opinion] is not discussed fully, frequently, and courageously, it will be considered a dead dogma, not a living truth.” (p. 40) Therefore, if an opinion goes unchallenged, even if people can still follow its claims, people will generally forget its basic purposes and therefore will not know how to defend it. Mill warns against this because when truth loses its power, it can no longer be used as a marker of morality because it does not assert and demonstrate that it is in fact right. Mill concludes that even if an opinion is completely false, it is advantageous because it has proven the opposing opinion to be true. Next, Mill addresses the question of whether people should be able to act on their individual opinions. Although Mill firmly established that society should not interfere with opinions that do not harm members of the community, he does not feel the same way aboutto actions. Mill believes that if one's opinions cause actions that harm others, the individual's freedom to express that opinion may be suspended. Mill states: “The liberty of the individual must thus far be limited; must not bother others." (p. 62) Mill continues this argument by saying that if the individual acts simply in matters which concern him and him alone, that "he should be permitted, without molestation, to put his opinions into practice at his own expense." (p. 62) Since Mill established the axiom of human fallibility, various “life experiments” are necessary and justified. (p. 63) These “experiments” are essentially perspectives on life. according to Mill there must be many perspectives that, although each imperfect, are all equally close (or far) from the truth. Mill addresses how the tyranny of the majority can influence behavior and limit individuality and spontaneity, limiting actions of an individual. Dissenting ways of life are perceived by the majority as worthless, simply because the majority is unable to appreciate how an opposing point of view could be potentially more beneficial than the current popular way with which the majority is content. . Mill states: The majority, being satisfied with the ways of life of mankind as they now are (for it is they that make them what they are), fail to understand why those ways should not be good enough for all... [the spontaneity] is rather considered with jealousy, as an annoying and perhaps rebellious obstacle. (p. 63) The majority will always be content with the current popular opinion because if it is not, popular opinion will simply shift to the majority's way of life. Furthermore, Mill addresses how freedom of action can be beneficial to society. In the context of choice, Mill argues against conforming to laws simply because they are laws, because this does not lead to the development of the individual. Mill argues that the human traits of “perception, judgment, discriminative feeling, mental activity, and still more preference, are exercised only in making a choice… He who lets the world, or his part of it, choose his plan of life for him, he needs no other faculty than the ape-like one of imitation.” (p. 65) Mill further supports individuality by linking nonconformist ideology to social progress and economic development. By arguing that conformity limits the individual's freedom of choice, Mill is able to argue that conformity erodes human capabilities (perception, judgment, etc.). Therefore, as these abilities fade, humans become “incapable of any strong innate desire or pleasure, and are generally devoid of opinions or feelings.” (p. 68) This removal of radical thought limits human development and, inevitably, social development. Simply put, individuality, in the form of different life “experiments”, is essential for social progress in society and in the individual. And similar to his discussion of freedoms of opinion and thought, individuality is valuable because people may be able to learn something from other people who they see around them acting differently. Mill's arguments in On Liberty are convincing, but at first glance not airtight. It extends its notion of freedom – intervening only in self-defense – to the vast majority of humanity, but stops short of extending it to children or underdeveloped countries. The exception made for children is understandable; Parental rights have always extended beyond those of the state, because children have not yet reached a point where they can make informed decisions..