John Stuart Mill, 1806-1873, was a British philosopher, a political economist, civil servant and Member of Parliament (MP). It has been stated that he may have been the most influential philosophical thinker of the 19th century in the English speaking world. His father, James Mill, a philosopher as well, along with Jeremy Bentham, educated Mill. It was James Mill’s intent to educate his son in accordance with Utilitarian thought, a Bentham construct. Upon Bentham’s and his death, James Mill expected his son to carry on the cause for Utilitarianism. With this in mind, Mill’s educational experience was rigorous and he was intentionally kept away from other children outside the immediate family. Mill actually gravitated away from Benthamite thought, emphasizing individual liberty over the needs of the nation-state. This is discussed below.

(Revised upon further research on 3/29/09.)

In 1776, within his Fragment on Government, Bentham proclaimed that law should be based in the principle of "the greatest good for the greatest number". (As somewhat of a side note, his principles on crime and punishment may be found in France's postrevolutionary Constitutent Assembly {1789} in its Declaration of the Rights of Man, as follows: "[T]he law has the right to prohitbit only actions harmful to society...The law shall inflict only such punishments as are strictly and clearly necessary...no person shall be punished except by virtue of a law enacted and promulgated previous to the crime and applicable to its terms.") (Criminology: Theories, Patterns, and Typologies. Nineth Edition. Siegel, Larry. Thomson Wadsworth. 2007.) A segment of this is incorporated in the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, protecting (de jour, perhaps not de facto) citizens from cruel and unusual punishment (note the "and", which has been interpreted by some courts as necessary for the condition to be applied accurately in a court of law). The orientation that law should be for the majority to determine and enforce law is of course consistent with a democratic orientation and Bentham's thoughts, but inconsistent with Mill's eventual position. As mentioned at a future point within this treatise, Mill was keenly aware of the power of the "ascendant" class, and how their interests are reflected in perhaps all political, social, and familial (perhaps Comte's understanding of societies) dimensions. Mill, at the very least, spoke of this influence in law, custom, relationships, and "opinion" (Mill, J.S. On Liberty. 1869.) For instance, Mill wrote, "The likings and dislikings of society, or of some powerful portion of it, are thus the main thing which has practically determined the rules laid down for general observance, under the penalties of law or opinion". (Mill, J.S. On Liberty. 1869.) He noted perhaps a complacency on the part of "those who have been in advance of society in thought and feeling,have left this condition of things unassailed in principle"...even if in conflict with it. (Mill, J.S. On Liberty. 1869.) Instead, Mill claimed, these avant guard (sp) thinkers focused on "what things society should like or dislike", giving up humankind's natural law of freedom for all individuals. Mill emphasized the only exceptions he observed were those inclined to defend individual, religious thought and belief, and these defenses entailed a rancorous nature. Mill continued to define the religious arguments (probably a weak description of the heated debates) in On Liberty, and saw enough of these to contend that these ended in a stalemate. This caused each side within the religious debate to realize it had gained no ground, and "seeing that they had no chance of becoming majorities, were under the necessity of pleading to those whom they could not convert for permission to differ." Mill broadened these battles of beliefs and maintained these personified the greater societal battle between the rights of the individual and the stance of the state to control and subvert individual behaviors that were in opposition to its interests. Mill posited religious liberty and an individual's "freedom of conscience" was a right never to be voided by any entity, or that an individual was "accountable to others for his religious belief". (On Liberty) Still, religious belief systems do not necessarily proliferate due to, as Mill put it, deep "intolerance" between groups. Therefore, Mill maintained the individuality associated with religious liberty did not translate into a powerful political force and the dominant class ensured its power, reflected throughout the social and political fabric, remained dominant over individual liberties outside pockets of the individual religious liberty.



Mill and Bentham agreed that if an individual's activities have the potential to bring harm to society, the community has the right to intervene for "self-protection". (On Liberty) However, this was Mill's only deviation from his principle that all other individual activities and thoughts must be free from societal interests and actions. And of course, Benthum believed that the majority, or law as dictated by the majority, could legitimately apply constraints against the individual, even if the "greatest number" are served. In addition, Mill maintained, even in the face of moral reasoning, individual actions causing harm are unjustified. This is certainly a contestable limitation since moral dilemmas by their nature are subject to differing opinions, some believing the action/activity justifiable and some not. Mill summarized that if a behavior concerned others then society has a stake in the situation, and should take action. One interesting aspect to this viewpoint, among others, is that there are a variety of opinions surrounding differing behavior; and these opinions have created categories of behavior with labels in some cases, such as victimless crimes. Other viewpoints, are classified by theorists and practitioners in several disciplines, including criminology and psychology, and these classifications lead to a variety of explanations and understanding for behaviors, as well as a variety of public policies in the creation and administration of law and public opinion. Therefore, intervention is based upon a social reality of crime and punishment, civil law construction and enforcement; and this social reality is fluid, subject to change over time and events that may have great impact (e.g. recessions, war and other military actions, or new behaviors related to technological advancement generated by discovery and invention).

4/1/09

I have run across a passage in Days that Changed the World (Hywell Williams. Quercus. 2006) that reinforces the struggle between individualism and the power of the state over the individual. Williams has written that "band(s) of protestant heretics (who) maintained that subjects had rights of conscience against divinely instituted rulers." (Page 63.) These "heretics" were responding to the Holy Roman Church and Pope Pius the V and the control it was exerting and attempting to maintain over the rights of individuals to think and act free. In this case, the struggle was between not just the dominant church-state in western and central Europe, it was a struggle between different spiritual and religious philosophies. The Protestant faction, based in northern Europe, including England, the Netherlands, and Germany (perhaps other sovereign countries to the south as well), advanced the thought that each individual had one's "right(s) to consciousness" in opposition to orthodox Catholicism's rulers and high priest (not local control) control of Europe and all political, social, and cultural life across Europe. England established the Anglican Church as the official church and political order in/of England, prompting Queen Elizabeth's excommunication in the late 16th century. The Spanish Armada's attack and invasion of England with about 100 ships and 30,000 soldiers aboard was to re-establish Catholicism in England as well as to eliminate Protestantism (Days that Changed the World). Even though the blog writer is pointing out a struggle within the same arena, religion, there may be a correlation between Mill's individualism and his rejection of "group-think and group rights over the individual and the world-changing battles between Catholicism and Protestantism in the 16th and 17th centuries. Did Mill read extensively about these factions? Or, within his lifetime, was this a part of the mindset of the English population? The writer suspects that the battles between Catholicism and Protestantism and their underlying philosophies that answer critical questions about humankind, such as Mill's, were part of the consciousness of certain segments of the English social structure; were part of its culture; and therefore, were part of the socialization process of individuals of Mill's stature. Williams notes that England's and North America's civilization development (post 16th century) is directly related to the Spanish Armada's defeat. Perhaps it was an ascension of Protestant individualism, and a decrease of mystical group-think and power from a centralized authority found in Catholicism that, among other things, formed part of English philosopher Mill's orientation. It seems that I have just scratched the surface regarding the historical nature of this issue and its complexity.

Mill displayed conflict theory underpinnings in contrast to the functionalism of Bentham.


Within the first decade of life, Mill became a prolific reader of classics and was appointed the family schoolmaster at the age of 12…an interesting concept and responsibility. It appears that while perhaps still a teenager, Mill, in concert with his father, wrote and published Elements of Political Economy. Mill was instrumental in the development of the economies of scale, opportunity cost, and comparative advantage in trade concepts. He believed in personal freedom, and emphasized its importance individually and for society. His admiration for his spouse, Harriet Taylor, may have led or influenced him to espouse the stance that irrespective of gender, all persons should be free to voice and act according to their own needs. This was critical for individual development and would provide for the betterment of a society.
It appears that he was considered at some point a philosophical radical. (I’ll have to investigate this later. Obviously, contextual information is necessary.) He might have been fluent in Greek, Latin, and French. One biography mentions that he was involved in political activities. I wonder at this point what those were. His intelligence might have worked as therapy. He suffered from depression at age 20, and historians believe he had the insight that his father’s instructional emphasis on cognition diminished his emotional development. He theorized that this deficiency may have correlated with his bout with depression. However, his capacity to analyze led him to the reading of poetry, a therapy for his malady. Mill had the grand opportunity to meet d’Eichtahl and St. Simon and other philosophers’ work, including Comte.
Mill advanced the idea that any new philosophical view needed to be incorporated gradually and slowly. Disregarding all segments of prior philosophical ideas was also dysfunctional. His father’s and Bentham’s ideas surrounding Utilitarianism would not be rejected in whole as new ideas and potential social change based in these new ideas would be integrated.
Mill and Marx appear to have a philosophical foundation similarity: they both believed in the importance of individual development and freedom, whether the person is a laborer or a person of wealth, and once again, a man or a woman. The development includes a striving for happiness. It has been noted that Mill moved away, to some degree, from his father, who did not exhibit Epicurean (one who believes in modest pleasures) tendencies at all.
Mill produced several noteworthy works, including On Liberty (1859), his System of Logic (1843), The Principles of Political Economy (1848), Utilitarianism (1861), Considerations on Representative Government (1851), The Subjection of Women (1869), and an autobiography published posthumously by his deceased spouse’s daughter in 1873, the same year of his death.
My initial readings about Mill involve language and logic, induction, and empiricism. I conclude that Mill takes the stance that in our use of logic, or how we go about our lives, we must be reasonable and not reject a form of reasoning that may lead to a conclusion that may be contestable. We must be able to infer from the present to the future, and make predictions to be safe, to be functional in a social world, and to survive. We conclude based on experience and we use experience to live effectively. It is an imperfect methodology. It includes deductive and inductive reasoning in the context of our experiences. It is fallible...but to have absolutism as a goal in this arena is unreasonable. Mill does point out that some logic, based in this reasoning, is more accurate than another. He mentions the use of superstition, leading to more inaccuracy and other dysfunction.
I, as others may, conclude that Mill espoused a form of empirical relativism. Others confirm this contention, stating Mill believed that knowledge is relative to our consciousness. Our consciousness includes inferences from our knowledge base (past events of like or similar nature). Our state of consciousness, including our beliefs, is from this inference. For example, when we visit a car dealership and open the door of a new car on the lot, we expect to smell a certain smell before we open the door and smell. If we have done this before, we are conscious of the smell prior to the present-day, about to happen, experience. Our knowledge is not from a direct experience in the present; our conscious awareness of reality is inferred from the past. The thought, or expectation is propositional, as you or I are “proposing” a reality in our thoughts. If we have not had this direct experience, but have heard about it, we have a different reality, belief, or knowledge about, and a different empirical understanding of our world, and therein is the relativity of the matter. This viewpoint also reveals the limits as well as the relativity of thought.
More later.

On Liberty (Added on 3/11/09 and 3/25/09)

On Liberty, published in 1859, is considered one of Mill's two best works in moral philosophy; the other, Utilitarianism. In Mill's words, this work focuses upon the amount of authority the nation-state can legitimately impose upon the individual. Mill mentions the present-day (mid-1800's) and future relevancy of this question in his introduction. At first glance, it is not difficult for me to imagine that he believed this to be an on-going challenge in any democracy. I remember reading another's review of Mill's entire works and a conclusion: Mill, along with Adam Smith perhaps, believed that a democracy is the preferred form of government. Beyond that, I can't go into great depth at this time to explain why Adam Smith or Mill felt this way. It appears of great importance for Mill to mention that this issue has been of great concern for more than the last two millenniums. Please note that Mill maintains this concern has divided man and that there existed in his world (I presume he was referring to a time frame somewhere between about 1760 to the time of publication of the treatise) conditions of a social, political, and economic nature that were drastically changing. He described this a period in which "civilized portions of the species" were involved in substantial progress. Almost immediately, he stipulated that when referring to liberty, freedom from the "tyranny" of political rulers should readily come to mind.

I venture that from a legal standpoint, individual rights and privileges become relevant. The legal definition of each is perhaps pertinent.
Accordingly, a right is the affirmative claim against another, including the state. A privilege, is the freedom from an affirmative claim against another, including the state.

Mill's insight that this issue, the "tyranny" of the state over individual rights and privileges, is relevant today is noteworthy. The U.S. Supreme Court , consideration of reviews, reviews, and decisions on voting rights (e.g. Indiana); firearms possession and ownership; freedom of the press issues; detainment issues (i.e. habeous corpus) such as "War on Terror" detainees); some state's same sex marriage laws;and the rights of pharmaceutical firms to refrain from providing certain information to prescription drug consumers are recent and/or current issues. The crux of the matter in these and other cases is the rights and privileges of the individual versus the rights and privileges of a governing authority. These are, of course, legal issues of grave importance, and decisions are based upon constitutional and constitutional amendment interpretations (e.g. First Amendment on Freedom of the Press, which includes the right or privilege to hear as well as speak or write.) (It's also interesting to note the frequency of the 5 to 4 split decisions in recent past, indicating the salience of these issues as well as the disagreement between members of the highest court, some of whom are no doubt considered constitutional scholars.) Mill ventures into history, describing prior eras rulers' power over his/her subjects, and the fact that the power was considered dangerous and how it could be used as a weapon against the masses and not simply against enemies. The relationship between the ruled and the ruler (e.g. Rome) was antagonistic, based upon inheritance (Are we at a different point now in the United States?) or conquest. Above all, as Mill mentioned, the ruler did not hold the position at the discretion of the people.

Updated on 3/28/09

Justified rebellion occurred only after guidelines were established limiting the rulers' power over his subject. These guidelines covered but few ruler infringements of subjects' rights. These were called "political immunities or rights" and a breach of duty on the part of the ruler in which the ruler transgressed against these immunities could cause legitimate rebellion or individualized resistance. In addition, Mill reminds us of the formulation of another branch of government via constitutional construction of a body to represent the masses. Naturally, how Europe progressed in this arena is quite different from the United States' progression (grand internal and external strife in comparison to liberation from an external kingdom). Perhaps United States leadership had an easier time of it, able to draw from a new European thought and models; free from historical international (European) and internal, historical national struggles (e.g. France attempting to change its cultural, societal, and governmental structures developed over many centuries, including a social stratification system and its ramifications in place). (Yes, indeed, the thirteen colonies did engage in a revolutionary war against Great Britain; I am quite aware.)

Trial and error within change in the midst of cultural and social life on this critical issue ("...how to make the fitting adjustment between individual independence and social control...") for extreme governmental structural alteration (i.e. from an aristocratic and Catholic clergy monarchy to an egalitarian democracy with inalienable citizen rights) produced much discord over many years in French and European society. (The French Revolutionary War of 1792-1802; The French Revolution of 1789-1799; the Napoleonic Wars; the Republican Insurrection or June Rebellion of 1832, which was an unsuccessful antimonarchist uprising of Parisian students in an attempt to reverse the monarchy of July {1830 to 1848}, a period of liberal monarchy rule of France under Louis Philippe, and was a result of the overthrow of the French Bourbon monarchy). (At the cost of 800 deaths, the republicans, or insurgents within secret societies, were crushed by the French National Guard at the Battle of Saint-Merry Cloister. The society for the Rights of Man directed the insurrection of 1832 in Paris. (wikipedia.org/wiki//june_rebellion)

Accordingly, the masses accepted the ruler only after two evolutionary provisions were "enacted". Mill notes this was a simple step within a process. First, Mill explained that humankind (the western world to Mill) altered its orientation in relationship to the almost omnipotent ruler, taking the position that he/she should become a simple "delegate", and others should become delegates for the masses' interests in the larger community. Mill's understanding of delegates of a temporary and elective nature fits into the United States' tripartite government model (except, of course with respect to the U.S. Supreme Court appointments). Just as Durkheim postulated that the deity or substitute entity within the collective consciousness of the mechanical solidarity society will reflect not only the interests of the masses, but more deeply their/its values (since the collective consciousness created it and maintains and alters it to continue to reflect its view and reinforce one another for survival sake), Mill also observed persons and societies gravitating to the view that the delegate should accurately reflect the publics' viewpoint within the context of its formally recognized and legitimized authority. Paraphrasing Mill, their (the rulers') power is the peoples' power and how and why couldn't or shouldn't the people now trust themselves?

Mill differentiated some of the essentials surrounding customs and laws. First, rules of conduct are not necessarily reflected in law. The writer advances that most are not. Rules of conduct outside the law are the "principle question in human affairs" and are decided upon differently by each society and by "the ages". Customs are axiomatically "self-evident", and "self-justifying" for each culture, based in a belief by all that we would like ourselves and others to behave in a certain manner and are based in self-interests, whether reasonable or not. Mill wrote, "All that makes existence valuable for any one, depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of other people." This orientation speaks to how, as I have mentioned much earlier in another entry, the species appears to be hard-wired to take care of itself first. This writer does not understand how another might view our orientation differently; this is how we survive, even in the context of our social nature, which includes an understanding of the interdependency existence, irrespective of social structural makeup in a society. Within the context of interests, and self-interests, Mill interjects the self-interests of like-people in a society or social structure. Self-interests of the dominant class are reflected in and dominate the morality of its society. Mill observed this via how groups in a close relationship treated one another, and offered examples such as the Spartans and Helots of ancient Greece (i.e. Spartans {from Sparta, a city-state in ancient Greece} conquered and enslaved the Helots in 640 to 620 B.C.). This might be compared along one dimension to Durkheimian theorem: the division of labor reflects the morality of the participants of a specific culure at a specific time in history. We are unable to state that the division of labor causes the morality, or more specifically how groups of people treat one another within the context of their primary relationship, with its defining rules of conduct and belief system. For instance, the Spartans had to follow extremely well-described laws vis-a-vis the Helots, with punishments codified for transgressions that unjustly harmed Helots, since the Helots were actually owned by the city-state of Sparta, not an individual Spartan. Therefore, we might be able to posit that the division of labor's function, among others, was to establish and maintain a working and functional relationship between these two groups in order to achieve an umbrella objective for the society and its survival. For instance, the Helots were deployed as specialized soldiers to defend Sparta and the empire.

Updated 4/14/09

Mill's A System of Logic was published in 1843, and it is quite possibly his greatest work according to some readers of philosophy. It appears Mill stood steadfast upon the virtues of inductive reasoning, a mode based in the use of life experiences and observation within the context of empirical facts to extrapolate universal principles. (Davidson's conclusions. Davidson, Robert. Philosophies Men Live By. 1952.)

Mill parted with his father's and Bentham's Hedonism and Utilitarianism along at least one dimension: humans are capable of seeking additional pleasures than lower species are able. According to Mill, the additional pleasures include different dimensions that "beasts" are unable to experience. For instance, Mill noted humans experience "pleasures of the intellect, of the feelings, and imagination, and of the moral sentiments". Mill continued, some types of pleasures derive greater pleasure for one human being, while less pleasure for another. Therefore, some pleasures are more valuable than others. And, of course, quantity and quality are viable variables.

Mill differed with the aforementioned philosophers as well in realizing the importance of the other...Hedonism's and Utilitarianism's focus on the individual indicates a dearth of concern for others' viewpoints and needs. Mill stated, "As between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator." Mill cites Christianity's Jesus dictate "love they neighbor as yourself" to support an "ideal perfection of utilitarian morality". (Utilitarianism, Liberty and Representative Government. Mill, J.S. Everyman ed. E.P. Dutton and Co., Inc. New York. 1910)