Today we will read about the john stuart mill this article very usefull student of political science.
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.
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 from
death 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 lifepoetry,
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.
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 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.
So thanks for reading.
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.
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 from
death 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 lifepoetry,
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.
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 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.
So thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment