ill distinguished persuasion from coercion as means of encouraging the individual to choose a manner of behavior conducive to his or her own good (10 23). As "the person most interested in his own well being," the individual is ultimately in the best position to judge what his good for himself. Intervention against the individual in matters that solely concern the individual is probably based on general ideas that may or may not apply in the individual's case. Leaving the individual the final decision in his or her own affairs accords with the Utilitarian principle, by the way, because it places the decision in the hands of the person best equipped to make it. The negative opinions of others may constitute advice, and the negative feelings of others may constitute part of the consequences of behavior that affects the individual alone. In the end, however, the individual must be free to engage in acts that appear to others to do injury to him or her.
"Acts injurious to others require a totally different treatment" (Mill 13). The rights of the individual do not include the right to encroach on the rights of others. An individual must expect reproach and even retribution for damage that occurs to other individual on account of his or her acts or on account of his or her failure to act. Moreover, according to Mill, the person may rightly expect disapproval for the "dipositions" leading to acts that are harmful to others cruelty, malice, egotism, and so on. Such actual "vices," however, must not be confused with the "self regarding faults" associated with foolish behavior that affects only the self. The former are "immoral," but the latter are not. Society has a warrant to "inflict pain" on the individual for dispositions and deeds that bring harm to others, but not for acts that harm the individual alone (Mill 14).
Mill admits that behavior that harms the individual may do indirect harm to society (15 17). A...