John Stuart Mill

[Victor Eremita]

John Stuart Mill
Economist, Member of Parliament, Husband

In Continental Europe in the mid-19th century, while great individuals like Kierkegaard and Marx were writing what would be their most famous works, one lone individual in Great Britain was also writing his famous works. That man’s name was John Stuart Mill.

John Stuart Mill ranks as the greatest political economist of 19th century Britain. He is best known as a liberal political theorist who advocated for women’s suffrage in The Subjection of Women, utilitarianism and the “prevent harm to others” principle as a government policy in On Liberty, and expanded on the works of great economists before him, like Adam Smith and David Ricardo, in The Principles of Political Economy. His other lesser known work on logic, System of Logic, provided a stepping stone for contemporary logic ushered in the mathematician Gottlob Frege.

Mill was born in London on May 20, 1806. In his childhood, Mill was an intellectual prodigy; he had learned Greek and helped his father, James Mill, on writing political economic works before he was an adult. After a nervous breakdown in his twenties, attributed to his overworking and studies, he worked at the British East India Company until 1858. In 1851, he married Harriet Taylor and she influenced Mill’s conceptions of women’s rights. She died in 1858. Mill died in Avignon, France in 1873 and is buried along with his wife.

Here are some very brief discussions on three of Mill’s most interesting themes:

Qualitative Utilitarianism
Mill’s precursor Jeremy Bentham rejected the notion of inherent natural rights for all, and instead advocated for Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism argues that what constitutes as moral or right and wrong, is the maximization of pleasure and the minimization of pain. Mill famously puts thusly, “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse”, now known as The Greatest Happiness Principle.

However, in calculating what constitutes pleasure and pain, Bentham mainly considered quantitative pain and pleasure. Mill argued that the qualitative aspects must be taken into account in calculating the greatest happiness. For example, the pain of losing a pet is not likely to be equivalent to the pain of losing a friend or family member. Mill puts this idea thusly, “it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied”.

Woman Suffrage
Kierkegaard wrote Another Defense of Woman’s Great Abilities in 1834 advocating the equality of women. Unfortunately, it was tongue-in-cheek, unlike John Stuart Mill’s own work on woman equality, The Subjection of Women. Mill, possibly along with his wife Harriet Taylor Mill, takes the utilitarian principle and defends the emancipation of women. He argues that happiness for all would be increased if everyone, with the exception of children, has the right to vote, including women. Mill rejected the prevailing view of his time, that women are inferior to men, and attempted to persuade others that women can contribute to the world outside the home, increasing happiness and the greater good for all. Mill writes thusly, "the principle which regulates the existing social relations between the two sexes — the legal subordination of one sex to the other — is wrong itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement; and that it ought to be replaced by a principle of perfect equality, admitting no power or privilege on the one side, nor disability on the other."

Prevent Harm to Others Principle
In On Liberty, Mill takes the utilitarian principle and applies it to a society. He argues that it ought to be socially acceptable for individuals to be free in their actions, to do whatever they want, as long as they do not harm others. He also argues that the purpose of the government is to protect individual freedom and prevent harm to others and never to abrogate or violate those freedoms: “that 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 continues to expand on the “Prevent Harm to Others Principle” to cases of human freedom. Individuals must be allowed to have freedom of opinion, speech, ideals, and assembly, for example, as long as these freedoms do not harm others. He supports these freedoms in order to experiment ways of living and to find the best way of life. History, according to Mr. Mill, has shown that what was once immoral is now acceptable and has, in general, improved humanity’s way of life.

[Victor Eremita]

Just threw this one out, but I'm little rusty on Mill's works, feel free to make corrections.

[Arjen]

What I am missing is (offcourse, what else does one look for?) just what I like about John Stuart.

His father, James Mill, and Jeremy Bentham were the great utalitarianists. They professed that that which has the greatest 'use' is the most important. In a society that means that a great pianist for instance is much more important than a drifter to that society. John Stuart, being constantly pushed by his father to follow in his footsteps to become a philosopher and utalitarianist finally become so because he didn't have the abilities to do anything else. John Stuart, being the victim of his fathers utalitarianism because his father thought utalitarianism was the greatest good to ever have come to humanity and therefore the sacrificy of happiness of one person (John Stuart) was a small price to pay, wrote on utalitarianism in the oppossite way. Not in the sense of the hedonists James Mill and Jeremy Bentham (to obtain the greatest good), but to prevent the greatest evil from happening. The greatest good in that sense is self-contradictory because striving towards the greatest good and making sacrifices along the way, in fact, is the greatest evil a civilisation can ever be exposed to because nobody in the civilisation would want to be that sacrifice.

With that JS Mill opened the door to deontology and closed the door for the teleology of utalitarianism.

[Victor Eremita]

Thanks for that Arjen; never studied John's life in depth, as I have with Søren's. I knew John was pushed to be an overachiever, and I figured James and Jeremy were inspirational figures; I probably should've known James would force his views on John, as how Michael forces his views on Søren. Ah fathers.

The greatest good in that sense is self-contradictory because striving towards the greatest good and making sacrifices along the way, in fact, is the greatest evil a civilisation can ever be exposed to because nobody in the civilisation would want to be that sacrifice.

Did the utilitarians call it the greatest evil or are you calling it the greatest evil?

[Arjen]

Originally Posted by Victor Eremita

Thanks for that Arjen; never studied John's life in depth, as I have with Søren's. I knew John was pushed to be an overachiever, and I figured James and Jeremy were inspirational figures; I probably should've known James would force his views on John, as how Michael forces his views on Søren. Ah fathers.

I always like to say that philosophy is fathermurder.

Did the utilitarians call it the greatest evil or are you calling it the greatest evil?

I did, and JS by the extension of his work.