Communication ethics and the rejection of paternalism in John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty

Abstract

Western rejections of paternalism as a practice of communication are informed by the analysis of John Stuart Mill in his classic work On Liberty. Mill asserted that the individual is best equipped to make moral judgments, over and above other systems of morality or traditions. The capacity to judge without paternalistic interference from the State is negative liberty. Mill advocated for a process grounded in robust communicative engagement as a method of self-cultivation. This requires active learning. Mill’s analysis informs contemporary communication ethics with an emphasis on liberty as a virtue above faith in individuality, marking an influential contribution to the modern understanding of identity construction grounded in an originative “I” that must be protected. Libertarian and neoliberal accounts of ethics stand in Mill’s shadow, extending his individualistic account of judgment.

Keywords:

• Communication ethics
• Contextual communication ethics
• John Stuart Mill
• libertarianism
• neoliberalism
• paternalism

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Mill specifically refers to the Poor Law Board, which was a form of welfare relief to the poor in 19th century England. Mill does not allow that an absence of paternalism from government means anarchy. Rather, he discusses his suspicion of charity, which lulls the poor into accepting substandard, status-quo conditions for life. But he does advocate for at least two responsibilities for citizens to one another (while rejecting the idea that the State is founded on a contract between its members). One is to protect conditions that allow others to flourish in liberty; the other is to labor and sacrifice to defend its members from injury. Yet beyond this, “disinterested benevolence” toward other citizens is the proper disposition to protect personal liberty within the State (pp. 111–112).

2. Marx, however, had several critiques of Mill’s analysis regarding individualistic production (Persky, 2016).