John Stuart Mill

JOHN STUART MILL (1806-1873) John Stuart Mill was the most influential political thinker of the 19th centrury. In his political theory, liberalism made a transition from laissez faire to an active roele for the state, from a negative to a positive conception of liberty and from an atomistic to a more social conception of individuality.

While Mill was a liberal he could also be regarded at the same time as a reluctant democrat, a pluralist a co-operative socialist, an elitist and a feminist.

John Stuart Mill was born in London on 20 May 1806. He had eight younger siblings. His father James Mill came from Scotland, with the desire to become a writer. At the age of 11 he began to help his father by reading the proofs of his father’s book namely History of British India. In 1818 his father was appointed as Assistant examiner at the East India House. It was an important event in his life as this solved his finacial problems enabling him to develop his time and attention to write on areas of his prime interest, philosophical and political problems. His father was his teacher and constant companion. At 16 he founded the Utilitarian Society, an association of young men who met to discuss Bentham’s ideas. He became a member of a small group discuss political economy, logic and psychology. He joined the speculative debating society and the political economy club At 17. He obtained a post in the office of the examiner of India correspondence in the East India company which lasted until its abolition in 1853. He soon achieved distinction in the articles that he contributed to the Westminster Review. At the age of 20 he edited Bentham’s Rational of Evidence.

In his thinking John Stuart Mill was greatly influenced by the dialogues and dialectics of Plato and the cross questions of Socrates. His studies were also influenced by the writings of John Austin, Adam Smith and Ricardo. He had inhibited Bentham’s principles from his father and Bentham himself and found the principles of utility the keystone of his beliefs. Among other influences, a special mention is to be made of the impact exercised on J. S. Mill b his own wife Mrs. Taylor whom he used to call a perfect embodiment of reason, wisdom, intellect and character. She touched the emotional depths of Mill’s nature and provided the sympathy he needed.

J. S Mill was a prolific writer and he wrote on different branches of knowledge with equal mastery. His System of Logic (1843) tried to elucidate a coherent philosophy of politics. The logic combined the British empiricist tradition of Locke and Hume of associational psychology with a conception of social science based on the paradigm of Newtonian physics. His Essay On Liberty (1859) and the Subjection of Women (1869) were classic elaborations of liberal thought on important issues like law, rights and liberty. Another major work, The Considerations of Representative Government (1861) provided an outline of his ideal government based on proportional representation, protection of minorities and institutions of self government. His famous work Utilitarianism(1863) endorsed the Benthamite principle of the greatest happiness of the greatest number yet made a significant departure from the Benthamite assumptions. It was written an exposition and defense of the pleasure pain philosophy applied to ethics, but he makes so many changes that there is little left of the original creed. He seems that human nature is not entirely moved by self- interest as Bentham and his father had taught, but is capable of self-sacrifice.

Qualitative Utility

J.S Mill was a close follower of his teacher, Jeremy Bentham and his services to Bentham are exactly the same as the service of Lenin to his master, Karl Marx. He saved Benthanism frombdeath and decay by removing its defects and criticisms as Lenin made Marxism up to date Mill criticized and modified Bentham’s utilitarianism by taking into account factors like moral motives, sociability, feeling of universal altruism, sympathy and a new concept of justice with the key idea of impartiality. He asserted that the chief deficiency of Benthanite ethics was the reflect of individual character, and hence stressed on the cultivation of feelings and imagination as part of good life-poetry, drama, music, paintings etc. were essential ingredients both for human happiness and formation of character. They were instruments of human culture. He defined happiness and dignity of man and not the principle of pleasure, the chief end of life. He defined happiness to mean perfection of human nature, cultivation of moral virtues and lofty aspirations, total control over one’s appetites and desires, and recognition of individual and collective interests.

In his desire to safeguard utilitarianism from criticisms levelled against it, Mill goes “far towards or overthrowing the whole utilitarian position. The strong anti hedonist movement of his day, personified by Carlyle, determined him to show that the utilitarian theory, although hedonistic, is elevating and not degrading. Therefore, he sought to establish the non-utilitarian proposition that some pleasures are of a higher quality than other. Bentham had denied this, maintaining quantity of pleasure being equal, pushpin is as good as poetry’. Mill offers a singular proof that Bentham is wrong. Men who have experienced both higher and lower pleasures agree, he says, in preferring the higher, and theirs is a decisive testimony, ‘it is better to a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool or the pig is of a different opinion it is because they only know their side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both the sides.’ Mill’s assertion that pleasures differ in quality is no doubt a truer reflection of human experience than is Bentham’s insistence to the contrary. It is, nevertheless, non-utilitarian. If pleasures differ qualitatively, then the higher pleasure is the end to be sought and not the principles of utility. A Sodgwick, who was so ruthless and logical a thinker, saw, if we are to be hedonists we must say that pleasures vary only in quantity, never in quality. Utilitarianism, because it is hedonist, must recognize no distinction between pleasure except a quantitative one.

In the course of proving his thesis that the principle of utility can admit a qualitative distinction of pleasures, Mill makes use of the non- utilitarian argument that pleasures cannot in any case, be objectively measured. The felicific calculus is, he says, absurd and men have always relied upon the testimony of ‘ those most competent to judge. ‘These are no other tribunal to be referred to even on the question of quantity. In the words of C.L. Wayper, “Mill was of course right in maintaining the absurdity of the felicific calculus- but if it is admitted that pleasures can no longer be measured objectively, a vital breach, has been made in the strong hold of utilitarianism.”

Mill is concerned to establish the fact that pleasures differ in quality as well as quantity, so that he can maintain the further non- utilitarian position that not the principle of utility but the dignity of man is the final end of life. In his Liberty he makes the non- utilitarian complaint that “individual spontaneity is hardly recognized by the common modes of thinking as having any intrinsic worth, or deserving any regard on its own account’ He approves of Humboldt’s doctrine of self-realization. ‘It is of importance’, he says, not only what men do but also what manner of men they are that do it’. According to Bentham, not self-realization but the achievement of pleasure and the avoidance of pain was the end that they sort before men. Mill, on the contrary, is in effect saying that one pleasure is better than another if it promotes the sense of dignity of man. Mill is here introducing a conception of the good life as something more than a life devoted to pleasure. Mil’s Introduction into Utilitarianism of this moral criterion implies a revolutionary change in the Benthamite position. Thus Mill has once again made the state a moral institution with a moral end. Mill has defended utilitarianism only by abandoning the whole utilitarian position.

Mill’s non-utilitarian interest in the sense of dignity in man leads him to give a non- utilitarian emphasis to the idea of moral obligation. For Mill the sense of moral obligation cannot be explained in terms of the principle of utility. Thus while his ethics are certainly more satisfying than Bentham’s Mill is responsible for yet another important alteration in Benthamism.

Mills has pointed out that every human action had three aspects:

1. The moral aspect of right or wrong;

2. The aesthetic aspect (or its beauty) ; and

3. The sympathetic aspect of loveableness.

The first principle instructed one to disapprove, the second taught one to admire or despise, and the third enabled one to love, pity or dislike. He regarded individual self-development and diversity as the ultimate ends, important components of human happiness and the principal ingredients of individual and social progress.

Mill used the principle of utility which he regarded as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions to support his principle of liberty, but then it was utilitarianism based on the permanent interests of the individual as a progressive being. He made a distinction between toleration and suppression of offensive practices. In case of offences against public decency, majority sentiment would prevail. Beyond these, the minorities must be granted the freedom of thought and expression, and the right to live as they pleased.

In one another respect J.S Mill definitely makes an improvement over the utilitarian theory of Bentham. Bentham had not spoken about the social nature of morality that society itself has a moral end- the moral good of its members. From the contention that every individual desires’ his own happiness Mill held that the individual should desire and promote general happiness. It is thus obvious that Mill stood not for an individual’s happiness but for the general happiness of the community as a whole. He regarded utility as a noble sentiment associated with Christian religion.

In addition to the above differences, Mill also tried to reconcile the interests of the individual and the society. He spoke of nobility of character, a trait that was closely related to altruism, meaning people did what was good for society, rather than for themselves.  The  pleasures they derived from doing good for society

might outweigh the ones that aimed at self-indulgence, contributing to their happiness. Mill saw social feelings  and  consciences  as  part

of  the psychological attributes of a

person. He characterized society as being natural and habitual, for the individual was a social person. As Prof. Sabine has rightly pointed out, Mill’s ethics was important for liberalism because in effect it abandoned egoism, assumed that social welfare is a matter of concern to all men of good will and regarded freedom, integrity, self- respect and personal distinction as intrinsic goods apart from their contribution to happiness”. Under the sociological influence of August Comte and others, Mill introduces a historical approach to the study of man and human

institutions and is against the be

Benthamite static view of human nature and human institutions.

LIBERTY

Mill’s ideas on liberty had a direct relationship with his theory of utility or happiness. Mill regarded liberty as a necessary means for the development of individuality which was to become the ultimate source of happiness. There was only one road for him to take and that was the road of higher utility. In his well known work, On Liberty, Mill thoroughly examines the problem of the relationship between the individual on the one side and the society and state on the other.

Mill lived at a time when the policy of laissez faire was being abandoned in favor of greater regulation by the state of the actions of the individual. Besides, due to the growth of democracy, the individual was getting lost in the society. To Mill this increasing regulation and elimination of the individual was a wrong and harmful development. He believed that the progress of society depended largely on the originality and energy of the individual. He, therefore, becomes a great advocate of individual freedom.

According to J.S.Mill, liberty means absence of restraints. He believes that an individual has two aspects to his life: an individual aspect and social aspects The actions of the individual may be divided into two categories, i,e.

1. Self-Regarding activities and

2. Other regarding activities. With regard to activities in which he alone is concerned, his liberty of action is complete and should not be regulated by the state. However, in action of the individual which effects the society his action can be justifiably regulated by the state or society. In his On Liberty, J.S. Mill wrote thus: the sole end for which mankind are warranted individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their members is self-preservation. That is the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any members of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to other.

Mill defended the right of the individual freedom. In its negative sense, it meant that society had no right to coerce an unwilling individual, except for self defense. In its positive sense it means that grant of the largest and the greatest amount of freedom for the pursuit of individuals creative impulses and energies and for self- development. If there was a clash between the opinion of the individual and that of the community, it was the individual who was the ultimate judge, unless the community could convince him without resorting to threat and coercion.

Mill laid down the grounds for justifiable interference. Any activity that pertained to the individual alone represented the space over which no coercive interference either form the government or from other people, was permissible. The realm which pertained to the society or the public was the space in which coercion could be used to make the individual conform to some standard of conduct. The distinction between the two areas was stated by the distinction Mill made between self regarding and other regarding actions, a distinction made originally by Bentham. Mill in his On Liberty wrote thus: “The only part of the conduct of any one for which is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign”.

Mill defended the right of individuality, which meant the right of choice. As for as self-regarding actions were concerned, he explained why coercion would be detrimental to self development. First, the evils of coercion far outweighed the good achieved. Second, individuals were so diverse in their needs and cap cities for happiness that coercion would be futile. Since the person was the best judge of his own interests, therefore he had the information and the incentive to achieve them. Third, since diversity was in itself good, other things being equal it should be encouraged. Last, freedom was the most important requirement in the life of a rational person. Hence, he made a strong case for negative liberty, and the liberal state and liberal society were essential prerequisites.

Mill contended that society could limit individual liberty to prevent harm to other people. He regarded as theory of conscience, liberty to express and publish one’s opinions, liberty to live as one pleased and freedom of association as essential for a meaningful life and for the pursuit of one’s own good. His defiance of freedom of thought and expression was one of the most powerful and eloquent expositions in the western intellectual traditions. The early liberals defended liberty for the sake of efficient government whereas for Mill liberty has good in itself for it helped in the development of humane, civilized moral person In the opinion of Prof. Sabine, “liberty was beneficial both to society that permits them and to the individual that enjoys them”.

According to Mill, individuality means power or capacity for critical enquiry and responsible thought. It means self-development and the expression of free will. He stressed absolute liberty of conscience, belief and expression for they were crucial to human progress. Mill offered two arguments for liberty of expression in the service of truth; a) the dissenting opinion could be true and its suppression would rob mankind of useful knowledge, and b( even if the opinion was false, it would strengthen the correct view by challenging it.

For Mill all creative faculties and the great goods of life could develop only through freedom and experiments in living. On Liberty constituted the most persuasive and convincing defense of the principle of individual liberty ever written. Happiness, for Mill was the ability of the individual to discover his innate powers and develop these while exercising his human abilities of autonomous thought and action. Liberty was regarded as a fundamental prerequisite for leading a good, worthy and dignified life.

Mill clarified his position on liberty by defending three specific liberties, the liberty of thought and expression including the liberty of speaking and publishing, the liberty of action and that of association. Mill wrote thus: ‘If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person , than he if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.’ Mill provided some reasons for the freedom of expression. For Mill since the dominant ideas of a society usually emanate from the class interests of that society’s ascendant class, the majority opinion may be quite far from the truth or from the social interest. Human beings, according to Mill are fallible creatures- and their certainty that the opinion they hold is true is justified only when their opinion is constantly opposed to contrary opinions.

When comes to the liberty of action Mill asserted a very simple principle: the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self protection………. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

Mill defended freedom of association on three grounds. First ‘when the thing to be done is likely to be done better by individuals than by government. Speaking generally, there is no one fit to conduct any business or to determine how or by whom it shall be conducted as those who are personally interested in it. Second, allowing individuals to get together to do something, even if they do not do it as well as the government might have done it is better for the mental education of these individuals. The right of association becomes a ‘practical part of the political education of a free people taking them out of the narrow circle of personal and family selfishness and accustoming them to the comprehension of joint concerns habituating them to act from public or semi- public motives, and guide their conduct by aims which unite instead of isolating them from one another:. Further, government operations tend to be everywhere alike, with individuals and voluntary associations, on the contrary there are varied experiments and endless diversity of experience. Thus Mill wanted individuals to constantly better themselves morally, mentally and materially. Individuals improving themselves would naturally lead to a better and improved society.

Mill’s doctrine of liberty has been subjected to severe criticisms from different corners. Sir Ernest Barker made an interesting observation when he remarked that Mill was a prophet of an empty liberty and an abstract individual’. Mill had no clear cut theory and philosophy of rights through which alone the concept of liberty attains a concrete meaning. Ernest Barkers observation followed from the interpretation that the absolute statements on liberty like the rights of one individual against the rest was not substantiated when one assessed Mills writings in their totality. For instance, his compartmentalization between self- regarding and other regarding actions, and the tensions between his tilt towards welfarism which conflicted with individualism were all indications of this incompleteness. But the point Barker ignored was the fact that the tension that emerged in Mill was an inevitable consequence of attempting to create a realistic political theory which attempted to extend the frontiers of liberty as much as possible . In fact, no political thinker including the contemporary thinkers like John Rawls, Robert Nozick etc are free from this inevitable tension.