Customer Reviews

On Liberty and Utilitarianism (Everyman's Library (Cloth))

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

So many people in our modern political discourse will say, "I'm not hurting anybody," or, "We both consented to do this and we're not hurting anybody, you cannot interfere." These ideas stem from an essay written in 1859, probably not one of the most brilliant or original but an important statement in the history of political philosophy.

Background

I think Isaiah Berlin's Introduction is very helpful and helps one to understand the underlying philosophy that informed Mill. Mill was a major advocate of tolerance; but in nearly a century and a half since Mill's time, the meaning of this term has changed a great deal.

"Toleration, Professor Butterfield has told us, implies a certain disrespect. I tolerate your absurd beliefs and your foolish acts, though I know them to be absurd and foolish. Mill would, I think, have agreed. He believed that to hold an opinion deeply is to throw our feelings into it. He once declared that when we deeply care, we must dislike those who hold the opposite views." (xvii)

Mill was, "... a Victorian agnostic who was uncomfortable with atheism and regard religion as something that was exclusively the individual's own affair. " (xxxvii)

Mill looks at the question of how far the State or society can limit the liberty of its citizens. Mill's answer is that the only limit that can be allowed is when an individual harms another; aside from this, the individual can do whatever s/he wants. In the late 1950's, Mill's thought was revived to justify the repeal of anti-homosexuality laws in Great Britain and recently the magazine, "The Economist," applied Mill's thought to say that "recreational" drugs should be legalized. Mill thought that the only possible rational reason that could be given to restrict individual liberties is that there is only one way to live life and all opposing views are spreading falsehoods (this is what Mill is arguing against). Mill's response is simply that people are fallible and therefore cannot have the whole truth. Thus, society has to allow differing viewpoints, diversity and people to exercise their liberty (with the restriction that it not harm other people).

On Liberty Chapter 1: Introduction

Mill outlines his thesis and explains what the issues are. His point in brief is, "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient reason." (pages 12-13)

Chapter 2: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion

Here, Mill defends the ABSOLUTE right of freedom of belief and expression. Mill discusses the idea that society's beliefs are often (i.e. 99% of the time) fallible and thus opposing views must be allowed. I liked Mill's view on conflicting ideas; if an idea is shown to be true because it has defeated all its rivals, one can be much more confident of it than if one were to suppress all other rivals.

Chapter 3: Of Individuality, as one of the Elements of Well-being

In this chapter, Mill encourages diversity; it is good for society that there be many lifestyles.

Chapter 4: Of the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual

Mill's defends the idea he explained in the Introduction. He rests the idea on a distinction of "other-regarding actions" vs. "self-regarding actions." I doubt that such a distinction can easily be made and if it could be made, I think, the "self-regarding actions," would be surprising small.

Chapter 5: Applications

Mill discusses some of the possible applications of his political philosophy; some of his examples are alcohol regulation, the sale of poisons and education. One of the most interesting points he makes is between two common ways politics govern a problematic issue; either an outright ban or regulation and taxes to make the acquiring the good or service difficult. Mill makes the point that the difference is only one of degree and not of kind; if an outright ban cannot be supported in principle, then the support for regulation/taxation to limit availability likewise loses support.

Utilitarianism

This is an ethical philosophy based on consequences; in Mill's formulation, whatever produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people is moral or morally desirable. He spends much of his essay defending the philosophy against opponents and makes some legitimate points. Mill's utilitarianism is a collective theory, not an individual one; one must attack to produce consequences that maximize the happiness of all and minimize suffering and pain. The main problem with utilitarianism is that it seeks to reduce morality to non-moral ends; morality is an instrument to produce x non-moral quality (e.g. happiness, peace etc). Also, utilitarianism could justify acts that seem obviously immoral such as oppression of minorities (it would serve the interests of the greatest number, the majority, after all), punishing an innocent man (to provide a scapegoat for people) and that no act is wrong in of itself. In the essay, Mill does not, as far as I could tell, provide a clear definition of happiness, so it is somewhat difficult to follow him.

If somebody can suggest a thoughtful critique of, "On Liberty,", other than Lord Devlin, I would be interested in that. Also, a more through critique of utilitarianism would be helpful as well.