Well, good afternoon. My title afternoon is freedom and its . Now freedom is a very word of course and everybody to be in favour of . It's a very useful political in all sorts of ways. 's a useful word in rhetoric in debate. The word's often of course therefore, but let be clear about what I'm to talk about. I'm not to be talking about psychological , what you might call freedom the will; that's a very and difficult issue. What I'm to be talking about is much closer, I think, to sense, that is the political legal freedom of individual people, of individual people, though, I refer to groups as well.

, what are we going do? Well, after I've introduced topic, let's have a look , I say, some arguments for , in early modern Europe, I'll a couple and add some about other possible arguments. Then, 'll look at arguments against individual . There are powerful arguments against and they're not new. Then 'll home in on John Stuart 's classic defence of personal freedom, the sense in which I'm the term freedom. John Stuart was a nineteenth century English . I'll add some comments on 's analysis and then we'll look some current policy issues in to Mill's principle and see we can begin to reach sort of judgement on how the principle is in real day difficult practical issues. OK. sounds a bit theoretical but 's really not very difficult. It's close to common sense in ways.

Right, let's turn to some arguments for freedom early modern Europe. My first is a religious one. We're of the early seventeenth century Poland. Now this was a of course of religious wars. who didn't subscribe to the religious doctrines on either side be burnt or otherwise damaged their trouble. Heretics in particular be burnt to death. Now, a man was Socinus, he burnt in Poland in 1604 his argument was this. He argued for some freedom of in religious beliefs, some freedom thought in religious beliefs. Now, ? What was his argument? What his reasons? Well, his reason was a single one, that 's no such thing as final truth. There's not simply one absolute truth. So that's really point about the nature of itself. My next example comes from the seventeenth century, but bit later, the English poet Milton, the famous English poet, author of Paradise Lost and Regained and so on. Well, 1644, during the English civil , he argued that truth and should be allowed to struggle , truth and falsehood should be to struggle together. Now his was that in a free truth will always win out falsehood. So this is really procedural point he's making, isn't ? Not a point about the of truth but a point how truth can be arrived .

Now, I say some for individual freedom. We've looked far very briefly at two. are plenty of others of and you can perhaps think some. I mean it's something children think of in relation their own freedom of action . We all do it, especially our freedom's challenged. There's one argument for individual freedom that is worth adding to the . And that would be an that if you, if people's are respected, so to speak, the people themselves are respected. philosophical pedigree of this idea , at least in part, with eighteenth century German philosopher Immanuel , who stressed the importance of for people as a main point.

OK. Let's go now to some arguments against freedom. This might seem a harsh. Well, what are the ? As I say, they are very powerful and effective and of them, at least, are worth considering very carefully. Let's with the Pope, the head the Roman Catholic church, in . In one of his official as Pope, in a Papal , Pope Gregory 16th described liberty conscience, which was coming into , freedom of conscience, as a , as of disease of the acute sort. There was only truth and it was absolute. here we have the Pope, least the Pope of the , replying to Socinus, so much . My second example of arguments individual freedom is very different. 's an idea that some neo-Marxists, least some followers of Marx, Marx, the nineteenth century German , use. In this century some have claimed that the liberal on toleration is part of they would call a bourgeois and bourgeois morality needn't really taken very seriously. The real , according to these Marxists, is class war. And the proletariat, is the working class, will win the class war in long run. Now, I'm reminded Marx and Engels in the Manifesto. They said that the of all hitherto existing society the history of class struggle. was a rather, you know, account of the matter from point of view. They're trying get us to accept that whole of history is the of the class struggle. So that background, individual freedom has be seen, if anything of , as an aid to the of the class struggle. Now, other arguments are there against freedom? I did suggest that of them have to be very seriously. I'm reminded of People's Republic of China, in public response to some of recent United States insistence on rights, individual human rights. The government's spokespersons have made remarks these lines. That human welfare the most basic sorts is important than individual freedoms. That is roughly what they were . That I think does have be taken seriously. What they is that if people are , it may be more important have food than to have sorts of individual freedoms that so cherished in the west.

, let's come in a more detail to John Stuart . Who was he? He was in 1806. He lived until . He was the son of very distinguished father, James Mill, an associate and colleague of Bentham. Now Jeremy Bentham was utilitarian lawyer and philosopher. One the founders, by the way, University College in London, which the first secular, that is , university institute in this country. the young John Stuart Mill brought up in a very atmosphere. The story is well from his autobiography, by the , how he was taught by father from the earliest age, age of three or four, was taught Latin and Greek as soon as he could . And he was destined by father to be one of great intellects of the age. , he promptly had a nervous as a young man, as might imagine, he'd been subjected considerable pressures. But he recovered he did indeed go on write on social philosophy, logic, scientific method. Many different things, philosophy, logic, and scientific method. best known writings however are long essays on liberty, which 'll be referring to, 1859, and , 1863. As well as his , which I've referred to, published 1874, the year after his . I'd better just explain what is very briefly. It's the doctrine that we should value action, not according to the of the person acting, but to the consequences, the results, the action. And this became powerful, it still is, a social philosophy.

OK. Let's back to the concept of , which is enough for us today. So, I'll refer to essay on liberty, what was Stuart Mill doing in this ? Well, his aim, which he states in the early part the essay, is to set one main principle This principle show which sorts of freedom thought and freedom of action persons should have and which be limited by the state. were some, he conceded, that to be limited by the , but the question was where draw the line. And this really the subject of his . OK. Well, what was the then? Mill's principle was that individual should be free to and act as he or chooses except when such thought action will harm others. That's exception that's so important there. 'll just repeat that, the individual be free to think and as he or she chooses when such thought and action harm others. Let me just a couple of pieces from 's essay on liberty. Firstly, here have the principle stated in of its many statements. "The part of the conduct of , for which he is amenable," is to say accountable, answerable, " society, is that which concerns . Over himself, over his own and mind, the individual is ," sovereign, in complete control. And to the exception I mentioned, we have another statement of , in surprisingly modern simple English, " liberty of the individual must thus far limited; he must make himself a nuisance to people." Well, you can't get simpler than that, can you? all know, we all know that means. Now, Mill went to distinguish three sorts of and he argued in favour each of them. First there freedom of thought and expression. to think what you like freedom to express what you in writing or in speech. , freedom of action, freedom to as you wish. And thirdly, of people to associate together, meet together. I suppose it , these days, include the Internet, 't it? I don't know.

. Let's have a look first at some arguments in favour freedom of thought and opinion. suppress an opinion, Mill thought, to rob the human race. were very valuable things, for , you see. Furthermore, we can be quite sure that an is wrong. Even if we it is, we have to ourselves could we ourselves be about it? Even if it false, it is still wrong suppress it, according to Mill. that sounds rather odd. Why it be wrong to suppress false opinion? Well, we come to Milton's point about the between truth and falsehood and even true beliefs, according to , benefit by being challenged. The is that those who hold true beliefs will then have examine the grounds for them. , you know, if they continue believe the beliefs to be , they'll have better reasons and of the beliefs. OK. Let's now to arguments for freedom action and freedom of association. , we can learn, writes Mill, experiments in living. I don't what Mill would have made the, some aspects of the in California and Carnaby Street London, I don't know, but principle he was in favour experiments in living. They're useful, says, a very utilitarian point, consequences are useful. Again, individual makes life rich, diverse and , I quote him, rich, diverse animating. And here is vintage , spelling it out, "genius can breathe clearly in an atmosphere freedom," genius can only breathe in an atmosphere of freedom. we have to have this of freedom if genius is flourish. And if genius doesn't , we're all so much the . By genius, by the way, Stuart Mill meant something not uncommon, he said we all genius, he wrote an essay the subject in 1832. We have genius, he said, and is really coming to understand clearly for ourselves. He wasn't favour of the romantic notion what genius is. Again, quoting , "he who lets the world his plan of life for has no need of any faculties than the ape-like one imitation." Do we want to like apes or parrots, he . A bit hard on apes parrots, perhaps, but never mind. we want to be just without any intelligence or foresight our own?

OK. But we come to the rub. must be some limits, according Mill, on individual freedom. And individual does indeed owe something society, especially when in a of trust over others. For , Mill says, it's a rather discussion about drunkenness. He says private person shouldn't be punished getting drunk. I mean if does harm, it does no to anybody but himself, as as he's a private person, to Mill. You might wonder Mill's right about this, but is what he says. But does agree that a soldier policeman on duty should be if drunk. Now, why is ? Well, a soldier or policeman duty should be penalised because, course, they're in a position responsibility and trust. And if are drunk, they can't carry their responsibilities, they can't honour trust. We don't need to too imaginative to think of of what would happen if police or the infantry were . They might fire guns by or arrest the wrong person so on.

What now the state? Mill's argument is the state does need to individual freedom of action to extent. So where does the come in? Well, it's interesting he starts by saying that power in itself is a thing. So you have to it. I mean some bad are justifiable. Pain is justifiable you have to have a leg set, for example. Well, thought, in a similar that state, although its power was , was necessary for the greater . Well, the state, state power, to Mill, can be justified in so far as it's to protect the individual from . It's an evil to add to the power of the . Since, according to Mill, "state erodes individual choice and makes small minded and dependent." I'll repeat that, "state power erodes choice and makes people small and dependent." Well, a whole of points there. But Mill to sum things up in own way, in this way, " state which dwarfs its men," , by the way, although Mill a remarkable early feminist, but still used what was then convention of referring to people general as men. Let's start , "a state which dwarfs its will find that with small no great thing can be ." It's quite a vivid image, think, the state dwarfing its .

OK. Let's turn to some thoughts on Mill's of freedom, which I've tried summarise as simply as I , freedom and the proper limits freedom. Now, Mill of all could hardly, on his own of the matter, expect us accept his account of the without question. Here, then, are questions for Mill. He's not in a position to reply them but there we go. first concern is this, is making an unclear distinction, the , that is, between things that nobody but myself and things harm others. Is this distinction as clear as Mill makes ? Well, consider the argument that should be free to watch pornographic videos in private. It's argument that is often put, some vehemence by those in of that sort of activity. at least those in favour individual freedom to engage in sort of activity. The argument go that it will harm one else. But, if you about this, is it entirely that I may not be to put some of the into practice at terrible cost my victims. Now this is very serious and live issue. was in fact in this a big official enquiry into sort of thing, chaired by philosopher, and it was very in its conclusions. But I the jury is still out this one, so to speak. 's a need perhaps of more , and more discussion on a of how far video nasties have an effect on people's . Well, if they do, and 's take the extreme case of torture and murder of children, they do have a bad , then that certainly amounts to others.

A second question Mill. Is there really a , I mean this is a question, is there really a private moral realm? An English , Lord Devlin, thought not. In enforcement of morals, he argued the moral code, supported by ordinary people should be legally . It's very interesting, it's a conservative point of view, isn't ? If this view had prevailed, would still be illegal in country, for example. Now Devlin's was that if society is continue to exist, then there be a shared and enforceable code. There must be a and enforceable moral code. In words, this shared and enforceable code is the very social that keeps us all together. Devlin there challenged liberal assumptions, those of Mill, head on.

third question for Mill. call it the individual, the and what else. Well are individual and the state the relevant parties here? Think about parties, groups of people in in between the individual on one hand and all the of the state, all the of the state on the hand. I owe this point, enough, to Jonathan Sacks, the rabbi, on BBC radio. He interestingly that, we haven't time go into it much, he very interestingly that there had a preoccupation with the individual the Thatcher years in this and that had followed a with the welfare state earlier . He said, hang on there minute, there are other very entities, not just the state the individual. There are groups as the family, religious groups, of friends, and innumerable voluntary . Well, you might ask, are neglected in Mill's analysis? I the answer there would be some extent yes.

Now, , let's turn to Mill's principle some current policy issues. All have time for is just list some policy issues and 'd invite you to apply Mill's to them. Perhaps we can some of these issues in moment together. We've concentrated then Mill's classic defence of individual against the state. While recognising strengths, we have raised some about it. Well, that's what think we've done. Now, what the usefulness of Mill's principle now in the policy issues we ourselves face? Let's just some examples. First the legalisation , so called, leisure drugs of sorts. A very topical issue we all know. What are issues here of individual freedom what are the issues of to others? And what, as result of what we judge be the correct balance, should law on such drugs be? second example, and this of runs and runs as a urgent practical issue, abortion, termination pregnancy. Again, can we easily the individual freedom, and whose we talking about by the , the foetus, the mother, the , other groups, on the one , and, you know, the individual the one hand and others, the other hand? A final could be cloning, even human . Consider the question of human through private agencies. Which individual's here should be involved? And , or what, would be harmed? the benefits outweigh the harms? is the sort of question 've got to ask if we Mill's principle seriously.

So, way of conclusion, let me try and, again, summarise what 've been up to. We've looked some arguments for and against liberty of the individual. We homed in on Mill's classic of it and some possible to Mill. And finally, I asked how helpful is Mill relation to some current issues perhaps I could now invite views on this.

Thank for your attention. And perhaps 'd like to raise any questions may have or comment on particular present day issues.