Political Philosophy: A Practical Guide to the Select Works of John Stuart Mill

Section 1 - Preface

This book is intended to serve as a primer for students of moral and political philosophy with an emphasis on the more important works of John Stuart Mill.

Section 2 - Notes on the Text

With regard to quotations, content found within square brackets [] is mine; content found within parentheses () is Mill’s.

Sections in bold type or that are underlined are intended by me to highlight critical points.

Section 3 - Introduction

In this book we will be reviewing four of the more significant works by British philosopher John Stuart Mill: On Liberty, Considerations on Representative Government, Utilitarianism, and The Subjection of Women. Mill, who many regard as being the most influential philosopher of the nineteenth century, was born in London in 1806. He was the son of philosopher and historian James Mill, who, along with fellow philosopher Jeremy Bentham, educated his son in the hope of creating a child prodigy who would someday continue in his footsteps and advance the cause of utilitarianism, the ethical theory which we will be discussing later in the book. Essentially, Mill was home-schooled by his father and refusing an opportunity to study at Oxford, he opted instead to join his father in the employment of the East India Company.

Mill increasingly became active in politics, and from 1865 to 1868, he was elected to the British Parliament as a member of Liberal Party. Along with his wife, Harriet Taylor Mill, who was also a philosopher, Mill was one of the first to speak out publicly and actively campaign for women’s rights and suffrage. So much so, that he even went on to become president of the National Society for Women’s Suffrage.

Despite his many contributions in the areas of social theory, political philosophy, and political economics, Mill is probably best known for his ideas concerning utilitarianism. Though the theory was first put forth by Bentham, who referred to it also as the Happiness Theory, it is Mill’s modified version that we come to know it by today.

Besides being heavily involved in the British Government, Mill served as an administrator at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland from 1865 to 1868. As a point of interest, it is worth mentioning that Mill was the godfather to the renowned twentieth-century English philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell. John Stuart Mill died in Avignon, France in 1873 at the age of 66.

Section 4 - On Liberty

During the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, much of the Western world began to reject rule by absolute authority and instead began to move towards the democratic ideas of self-governance. Although this was a vast improvement over the days of kings and princes, it did not, in and of itself, remove the constraints placed on personal liberty. As democracies began to emerge, the individual fell under a new form of suppression, which came not so much from the government, but rather from the people themselves. John Stuart Mill referred to this form of suppression as the tyranny of the majority, and he claimed that is often more dangerous to the individual than the tyranny that exists under a monarch. In his famous work, On Liberty, which was published in 1859, Mill presents the case for individual liberty against all forms of authority, and he sets its limit only at the rights and safety of others.

The following review highlights the some more important ideas regarding personal liberty that are presented in this book.

Chapter 1 (On Liberty)

Introductory

As society developed and began to replace the tyranny of monarchial and aristocratic despotism with self-government, a new form of tyranny arose: the tyranny of the majority. This new form of tyranny has been shown to be just as evil as the former.

Since the tyranny of the majority occurs within a society under self-government, it cannot be simply overthrown. Therefore, it is much more difficult to escape from.

Within society, there must be protection against the tyranny of prevailing opinion and feeling.

There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence. Finding and maintaining this limit is just as worthy an endeavor as establishing protection against political despotism.

Public opinion and morality are often established by social classes and feelings of class superiority. As such, public opinion and morality determine the relationships among the classes.

Religion plays an important role in shaping the morality of a society.

Where public opinion is not covered by rule or principle, government interference is improper.

The theme of this treatise: The sole purpose of interfering, either individually or collectively, with the liberty of action of any member of a civilized community is self-protection. Furthermore, the only reason by which power may rightly be exercised over one is to prevent the harm of another; it cannot be exercised for one’s own physical or moral well-being.

There may be good cause to persuade an individual with respect to his actions, but unless his actions pose a danger to others, one has no right to compel him; for over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. Of course, those who require the care of others, such as children, must be protected against their own actions. This exception also may apply to the backward states of society, such as those of the barbarians, provided that the ends lie in their improvement, and that the means are justified in effecting these ends.

Inaction may be just as harmful to others as action; therefore, individuals may be compelled to do things that, if left undone, would necessarily lead to the harm of others. Such things include giving testimony in court, providing for the common defense, working towards the general interests of society, and even saving the life of another. Accordingly, not to act in such cases makes one justly accountable for any injuries done. (It is worth noting that Mill does not make clear whether an individual should be forced to act in such a way if it brings harm to himself. To ignore this distinction is to force some to sacrifice themselves for the sake of others, and is the antithesis to individual liberty.)

Human liberty consists of the following:

The inward dominion of consciousness, which means the absolute freedom of thought, feeling, opinion, and sentiment on all subjects, particular or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological. This infers the liberty to express or publish one’s opinions as one sees fit.

The liberty of tastes and pursuits, which is the planning and arranging of one’s life according to one’s character without the impediment of others, so long as no harm is done to others. This liberty must be protected even in cases where one’s pursuit seems foolish, perverse, or wrong to a majority of the others.

The liberty to unite or assemble with those of one’s choosing, provided they are not forced or deceived, and again, where not harm is done to others.

Regardless of its form of government, no society is free where the above liberties are not wholly respected.

The natural inclination of mankind is to unduly stretch the powers of society over the individual, either by rulers or by fellow-citizens. Only a strong barrier of moral conviction can resist this inclination.

Chapter 2 (On Liberty)

Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion

Freedom of the press is one of the securities against corrupt and tyrannous government.

No government, individual, or majority may silence the opinions of any individual.

It is evil to attempt to suppress even false opinions, for all silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.

All admit to being fallible in principle, yet few admit to being fallible in the things they feel most strongly about. Princes and other well-situated individuals usually consider their opinions to be true; however, according to Mill, even the most intolerant of Churches, the Roman Catholic Church, admits to listen to the devil’s advocate.

Knowledge is gained not by experience alone, but through the discussions and arguments we have with others about our experiences. Thus our opinions must be able to withstand the most rigorous of challenges.

No matter how certain it may seem to be, no principle or doctrine is above question.

All challenges to certainty must be permitted. To deny them is to be the judge of certainty.

Challenges to public opinion are not feared because public opinion may be proven wrong, but because public opinion is thought to be important to society. In other words, it is often believed that it is more important for public opinion to be upheld than it is for it to be true.

The usefulness of public opinion is a matter of opinion as well.

To prevent or silence opinion is to assume infallibility. History bears this out, and with no more glaring examples than those of Socrates and Jesus, who were both put to death in order to silence their opinions.

The idea that truth always triumphs over persecution is false, for history shows the contrary. It is a mistake to believe that there is no great error in persecuting the truth, since the truth always emerges in the end. In actuality, truth may triumph over persecution, but it often takes centuries for it to do so.

Mill believed that for the narrow and uncultured minds, and especially those in the middle classes, a revival of religion is as much a revival of bigotry. As such, revivals of religion almost always lead to persecution.

With regard to religion, the persecution of heretical or irreligious opinion often leads to the fear of persecution in those who are non-heretics, but simply hold bold, vigorous, and independent trains of thought. This is not only wrong on an individual level, but on a societal level as well, for by silencing such opinions, social progress is delayed, if not altogether denied.

Individual opinion is endangered when public opinion is taught from a position of authority. When such is the case, public opinion is believed and upheld more through fear and superstition than by truth; furthermore, all challenges to public opinion come to be seen as being harmful.

Whatever one’s opinions may be, he ought to be able to defend them with reason, and not by merely repeating what he has heard or read from others.

Opinions should only be held when one understands all sides of the issue, for He who only understands only his side of the case, knows little of that. Thus,