A Comparison between Locke’s and Mill’s Notions of Liberty

Throughout the last few centuries of human intellectual history, liberty has consistently assumed a prominent role as a fundamental philosophical concept. Among the various schools of political thought, the Liberalism ideology emphasizes freedom the most. In this study, two important philosophers of the liberal tradition who conducted discussions on liberalism, John Locke and John Stuart Mill, are discussed. The research method is compilation, and the similarities and differences between the thoughts of the two philosophers have been examined. According to the results of the research, Locke, who lived throughout the seventeenth century, focused on the concept of natural law, while Mill, a nineteenth-century liberal, followed a Utilitarian approach. While Locke emphasized that freedom and will are separate in terms of the abilities of the mind, Mill argued that causality is not contrary to freedom and does not mean absolute determinism by suggesting the separation of freedom and causality. Locke advocated religious tolerance and the separation of church and state. In contrast, Mill understood liberty in terms of individual autonomy and minority rights within a democratic framework, arguing freedom of expression, thought, and action should only be restricted to prevent harm to others. Despite these differences, freedom continues to be important as a general subject that should be discussed beyond the principles of the age. Furthermore, both philosophers underscored the intrinsic value of liberty as essential for human flourishing, societal progress, and the pursuit of happiness.