What do you think?
Rate this book
Classic Thinkers (Thinkers)
John Stuart Mill: Moral, Social, and Political Thought
This book offers a clear and highly readable introduction to the ethical and social-political philosophy of John Stuart Mill. Dale E. Miller argues for a "utopian" reading of Mill's utilitarianism. He analyses Mill's views on happiness and goes on to show the practical, social and political implications that can be drawn from his utilitarianism, especially in relation to the construction of morality, individual freedom, democratic reform, and economic organization. By highlighting the utopian thinking which lies at the heart of Mill's theories, Miller shows that rather than allowing for well-being for the few, Mill believed that a society must do everything in its power to see to it that each individual can enjoy a genuinely happy life if the happiness of its members is to be maximized. Miller provides a cogent and careful account of the main arguments offered by Mill, considers the critical responses to his work, and assesses its legacy for contemporary philosophy. Lucidly and persuasively written, this book will be a valuable resource for students and scholars seeking to understand the continued importance of Mill's thinking.
- GenresPhilosophy
252 pages, Paperback
First published August 23, 2010
19 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
July 14, 2019
The single greatest input of Industrial Revolution was the construction of ‘homogeny’. Before it, there existed small scale and cottage industries which earned the remarkability of assorted character. John Stuart Mill treated it as the emblem of emancipation. But the Industrial Revolution destroyed this heterogeneity. Man became the slaves of machine and they were subjected to the wills and caprices of industrial tycoons. In Mill’s judgment this uniformity was against the expansion of personality and implement of liberation.
In his 252 page book Dale Miller does pack a punch. He argues for a "utopian" reading of Mill′s utilitarianism, scrutinizing Mill′s take on happiness and illustrating the realistic, societal and opinionated allusions that can be drawn from his utilitarianism, principally with regard to the erection of ethics, free will, economic organization and so on.
James Mill, the father of J. S. Mill was born in 1773 and died in 1873. Sandwiched between the nativity of father and demise of son there was a space of a century. The century covered by these two lives fixes incredibly moderately the chronological bounds within which Benthamite utilitarianism augmented, flourished and died by absorption into later philosophic growths. James Mill was a devotee of Bentham as well as his ally. The younger Mill, a gifted child, received from his father the abiding intuitions. James formulated the utilitarian principle stringently in conventionality with Bentham's code of belief. In fact, James shared the views of Bentham in toto so far as the code of utility is concerned. After forty years, his capable son, John, set forth a theory which was authentic in most fundamentals to the canon of his father. But in due course this differed in scores of respects from the original Benthamism.
Jeremy Bentham, towards the closing years of his life, was convinced that in the English society, ‘menacing interests’ were awfully vigorous and they were eating into the kernel of democracy. James Mill shared this view. The Industrial Revolution in England had failed to make the groundwork of democracy unyielding and broad-based. Attention took a better turn after the publication of de Tocqueville's ‘Democracy in America’ in 1835. From the 1830s the British government embarked upon certain reforms to toughen the foundation and fringe of democracy. The acclaim of this should go to Bentham. John Stuart Mill, however, began to look at it from a quite different angle. John’s love for democracy was not less than anybody's. But he was also a pragmatist, who did not think in terms of avoiding democracy. His intent was constantly to correct it.
John was born in 1806. At the age of three, he began to study Greek and at seven Latin. The contact with Greek opened up his brain to Greek philosophy. Not only did John scrupulously master history, arithmetic and Latin literature, but also started his study of political economy at the age of thirteen, in the progression completing Adam Smith and David Ricardo. By 1823, Mill earned estimable command over diverse subjects and came to be au fait with the academic circles of Britain. When John was in the teens he published various articles on philosophy and politics, particularly in ‘Westminster Review’, the official organ of Philosophical Radicalism. John’s works on politics and morality were the results of his mature intelligence and thought. He completed his essay on Liberty before his retirement and the death of his wife delayed the publication. It was published in 1859. His ‘Utilitarianism’ and ‘Representative Government’ were both published in 1861.
Mill says that in the current form of democracy, the rule of all does not mean the rule of each man by himself. Some people rule the others. Again, what is universally known as the ‘will of the people’ is in practice the ‘will of the majority’. The ‘will of the minority’ is neglected. Mill calls this, the ‘rule of the majority’ the ‘oppression or dictatorship or despotism of majority’ which, according to him is the abomination of democracy. This shortcoming is unacceptable, At the same time, democracy must be saved from this.
In the essay ‘On Liberty’ Mill affirms that liberty is not minimally a way of pursuing contentment or avoiding pain. If anyone treats liberty in that light he will be fairly unfounded. For the development of personality, liberty is obligatory. It is crucial both for the individual and for the society as a whole.
For the maximization of happiness, Mill contended, men should have maximum liberty. In this way utility and liberty are combined together. Mill had a broad goal in mind: the Greek ideal of self-government. It is the privilege of every human being to use and interpret experience in his own way, and the act of choosing between alternatives brings man's moral faculties into play. A man who acts according to custom and tradition makes no choice. Different persons should be permitted to lead different lives and the plea for variety in on Liberty is as strong as the plea for freedom.
The representative government of J. S. Mill resembles the ideal state of Plato. Mill does not think in terms of ideal state, he had no intention to elaborate the concept. But he has thought of good manner, honesty, interest in public affairs, ability and wisdom. Needless to say that Plato and Aristotle thought that people of ideal state must possess all these qualities. The ideal state would create a congenial atmosphere in which people could attain those. J. S. Mill also advised the representative government to do this duty. That is, it must educate people. We can thus say that his representative government cannot be viewed negatively.
But John Stuart Mill, as the author of this volume concludes, is not above disparagement. He was a democrat no doubt and his interest in democracy is above mistrust. Nevertheless, to borrow the term of C.L. Wayper, Mill was a ‘reluctant democrat’. It was past his mind's eye that the task of democracy could be achieved by the uneducated and politically comatose people. Thus, he invested his energy more in the debate of the reforms than in the debate of nature and other aspects. He did not support the popular sovereignty. He was in favour of the ‘wise men's rule’, which in modern terminology is nothing but the ‘rule of the elite’. He wanted reforms in the electoral system, but did not want universal suffrage. A man with great farsightedness like him little imagined that a universal suffrage could liberate the society from evils which could not be done otherwise.
It can be safely concluded with Ernest Barker’s quote on Mill that, he was “the prophet of empty liberty and an abstract individual. He had no clear philosophy of rights, through which alone the conception of liberty attains a concrete meaning, he had no clear idea of a social whole, in whose realization the false antithesis of "state" and "individual" disappears". Coherently and convincingly written, this book by Dale Miller, analyses the reason behind the aforesaid statement: Mill’s principal inadequacy was because even though he chose not to not accept Benthamism literally, he failed to come out of the Benthamite sphere.
In his 252 page book Dale Miller does pack a punch. He argues for a "utopian" reading of Mill′s utilitarianism, scrutinizing Mill′s take on happiness and illustrating the realistic, societal and opinionated allusions that can be drawn from his utilitarianism, principally with regard to the erection of ethics, free will, economic organization and so on.
James Mill, the father of J. S. Mill was born in 1773 and died in 1873. Sandwiched between the nativity of father and demise of son there was a space of a century. The century covered by these two lives fixes incredibly moderately the chronological bounds within which Benthamite utilitarianism augmented, flourished and died by absorption into later philosophic growths. James Mill was a devotee of Bentham as well as his ally. The younger Mill, a gifted child, received from his father the abiding intuitions. James formulated the utilitarian principle stringently in conventionality with Bentham's code of belief. In fact, James shared the views of Bentham in toto so far as the code of utility is concerned. After forty years, his capable son, John, set forth a theory which was authentic in most fundamentals to the canon of his father. But in due course this differed in scores of respects from the original Benthamism.
Jeremy Bentham, towards the closing years of his life, was convinced that in the English society, ‘menacing interests’ were awfully vigorous and they were eating into the kernel of democracy. James Mill shared this view. The Industrial Revolution in England had failed to make the groundwork of democracy unyielding and broad-based. Attention took a better turn after the publication of de Tocqueville's ‘Democracy in America’ in 1835. From the 1830s the British government embarked upon certain reforms to toughen the foundation and fringe of democracy. The acclaim of this should go to Bentham. John Stuart Mill, however, began to look at it from a quite different angle. John’s love for democracy was not less than anybody's. But he was also a pragmatist, who did not think in terms of avoiding democracy. His intent was constantly to correct it.
John was born in 1806. At the age of three, he began to study Greek and at seven Latin. The contact with Greek opened up his brain to Greek philosophy. Not only did John scrupulously master history, arithmetic and Latin literature, but also started his study of political economy at the age of thirteen, in the progression completing Adam Smith and David Ricardo. By 1823, Mill earned estimable command over diverse subjects and came to be au fait with the academic circles of Britain. When John was in the teens he published various articles on philosophy and politics, particularly in ‘Westminster Review’, the official organ of Philosophical Radicalism. John’s works on politics and morality were the results of his mature intelligence and thought. He completed his essay on Liberty before his retirement and the death of his wife delayed the publication. It was published in 1859. His ‘Utilitarianism’ and ‘Representative Government’ were both published in 1861.
Mill says that in the current form of democracy, the rule of all does not mean the rule of each man by himself. Some people rule the others. Again, what is universally known as the ‘will of the people’ is in practice the ‘will of the majority’. The ‘will of the minority’ is neglected. Mill calls this, the ‘rule of the majority’ the ‘oppression or dictatorship or despotism of majority’ which, according to him is the abomination of democracy. This shortcoming is unacceptable, At the same time, democracy must be saved from this.
In the essay ‘On Liberty’ Mill affirms that liberty is not minimally a way of pursuing contentment or avoiding pain. If anyone treats liberty in that light he will be fairly unfounded. For the development of personality, liberty is obligatory. It is crucial both for the individual and for the society as a whole.
For the maximization of happiness, Mill contended, men should have maximum liberty. In this way utility and liberty are combined together. Mill had a broad goal in mind: the Greek ideal of self-government. It is the privilege of every human being to use and interpret experience in his own way, and the act of choosing between alternatives brings man's moral faculties into play. A man who acts according to custom and tradition makes no choice. Different persons should be permitted to lead different lives and the plea for variety in on Liberty is as strong as the plea for freedom.
The representative government of J. S. Mill resembles the ideal state of Plato. Mill does not think in terms of ideal state, he had no intention to elaborate the concept. But he has thought of good manner, honesty, interest in public affairs, ability and wisdom. Needless to say that Plato and Aristotle thought that people of ideal state must possess all these qualities. The ideal state would create a congenial atmosphere in which people could attain those. J. S. Mill also advised the representative government to do this duty. That is, it must educate people. We can thus say that his representative government cannot be viewed negatively.
But John Stuart Mill, as the author of this volume concludes, is not above disparagement. He was a democrat no doubt and his interest in democracy is above mistrust. Nevertheless, to borrow the term of C.L. Wayper, Mill was a ‘reluctant democrat’. It was past his mind's eye that the task of democracy could be achieved by the uneducated and politically comatose people. Thus, he invested his energy more in the debate of the reforms than in the debate of nature and other aspects. He did not support the popular sovereignty. He was in favour of the ‘wise men's rule’, which in modern terminology is nothing but the ‘rule of the elite’. He wanted reforms in the electoral system, but did not want universal suffrage. A man with great farsightedness like him little imagined that a universal suffrage could liberate the society from evils which could not be done otherwise.
It can be safely concluded with Ernest Barker’s quote on Mill that, he was “the prophet of empty liberty and an abstract individual. He had no clear philosophy of rights, through which alone the conception of liberty attains a concrete meaning, he had no clear idea of a social whole, in whose realization the false antithesis of "state" and "individual" disappears". Coherently and convincingly written, this book by Dale Miller, analyses the reason behind the aforesaid statement: Mill’s principal inadequacy was because even though he chose not to not accept Benthamism literally, he failed to come out of the Benthamite sphere.
Read
July 8, 2013utilitarianism is so beautiful when we boil everything down to a risk / benefit analyis
how disappointing that Mill was convinced of the need to add emotions to the mix
I like the way that this books is written. Dale Miller has found a middle ground between academic and novice that works for me. My educational background lies heavily in math and science, with only the minimum required liberal arts electives. The lack of vocabulary and familiarity with various philosophers can sometimes make it hard to understand a text. Miller writes at a level that is both challenging and understandable, helping me to stretch my mind.
Mills thoughts thus far appear a good match to my own gut instincts. Absorbing the chapters one at a time is helping me to establish supporting arguments for my own beliefs, bringing them a step above the gut.
.....
I am stuck trying to understand "Of What Sort of Proof the Principle of Utility is Susceptible". I'm going to give it another try tonight and then I will have to move on. Maybe I'll come back to this section another time.
how disappointing that Mill was convinced of the need to add emotions to the mix
I like the way that this books is written. Dale Miller has found a middle ground between academic and novice that works for me. My educational background lies heavily in math and science, with only the minimum required liberal arts electives. The lack of vocabulary and familiarity with various philosophers can sometimes make it hard to understand a text. Miller writes at a level that is both challenging and understandable, helping me to stretch my mind.
Mills thoughts thus far appear a good match to my own gut instincts. Absorbing the chapters one at a time is helping me to establish supporting arguments for my own beliefs, bringing them a step above the gut.
.....
I am stuck trying to understand "Of What Sort of Proof the Principle of Utility is Susceptible". I'm going to give it another try tonight and then I will have to move on. Maybe I'll come back to this section another time.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews