What do you think?
Rate this book
On Liberty, Utilitarianism and Other Essays 2/e (Oxford World's Classics) by John Stuart Mill
'it is only the cultivation of individuality which produces, or can produce, well developed human beings'
Mill's four essays, On Liberty, Utilitarianism, Considerations on Representative Government and The Subjection of Women examine the most central issues that face liberal democratic regimes - whether in the nineteenth century or the twenty-first. They have formed the basis for many of the political institutions of the West since the late nineteenth century, tackling as they do the appropriate grounds for protecting individual liberty, the basic principles of ethics, the benefits and
the costs of representative institutions, and the central importance of gender equality in society.
These essays are central to the liberal tradition, but their interpretation and how we should understand their connection with each other are both contentious. In their introduction Mark Philp and Frederick Rosen set the essays in the context of Mill's other works, and argue that his conviction in the importance of the development of human character in its full diversity provides the core to his liberalism and to any defensible account of the value of liberalism to the modern world.
ABOUT THE SERIES: For over 100 years Oxford World's Classics has made available the widest range of literature from around the globe. Each affordable volume reflects Oxford's commitment to scholarship, providing the most accurate text plus a wealth of other valuable features, including expert introductions by leading authorities, helpful notes to clarify the text, up-to-date bibliographies for further study, and much more.
Mill's four essays, On Liberty, Utilitarianism, Considerations on Representative Government and The Subjection of Women examine the most central issues that face liberal democratic regimes - whether in the nineteenth century or the twenty-first. They have formed the basis for many of the political institutions of the West since the late nineteenth century, tackling as they do the appropriate grounds for protecting individual liberty, the basic principles of ethics, the benefits and
the costs of representative institutions, and the central importance of gender equality in society.
These essays are central to the liberal tradition, but their interpretation and how we should understand their connection with each other are both contentious. In their introduction Mark Philp and Frederick Rosen set the essays in the context of Mill's other works, and argue that his conviction in the importance of the development of human character in its full diversity provides the core to his liberalism and to any defensible account of the value of liberalism to the modern world.
ABOUT THE SERIES: For over 100 years Oxford World's Classics has made available the widest range of literature from around the globe. Each affordable volume reflects Oxford's commitment to scholarship, providing the most accurate text plus a wealth of other valuable features, including expert introductions by leading authorities, helpful notes to clarify the text, up-to-date bibliographies for further study, and much more.
Unknown Binding
First published May 28, 2015
154 people are currently reading
1097 people want to read
About the author
John Stuart Mill
1,986 books1,942 followersJohn Stuart Mill, English philosopher, political economist, civil servant and Member of Parliament, was an influential liberal thinker of the 19th century. He was an exponent of utilitarianism, an ethical theory developed by Jeremy Bentham, although his conception of it was very different from Bentham's.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
March 26, 2021
Warning: this is a long review! Thanks to Ian (see his concise review) for reminding me that I’ve always meant to read John Stuart Mill.
I
My first thought as I began reading the essay, “On Liberty”, was whether JSM was a philosopher at all. There were nothing abstract that I could lay my hands on (so to speak); nothing that left my brain whirling and helpless with theoretical possibilities; nothing that soared to intellectual sublimity or forced one to the depths of human ‘angst’. There was common sense; there was rationality; there was minute observation and seemingly endless, patient, examination and laying out of argument; there was teaching without preaching, analysis without didacticism. I think of his work as ‘a setting forth’. I was reminded straight away of the opening passage of “Lorna Doone” (RD Blackmore) where John Ridd states:
“If anyone cares to read a simple tale told simply, I, John Ridd . . . . have seen and had a share in some doings of this neighbourhood, which I will try to set down in order, God sparing my life and memory”. . .
I then had to re-read “Lorna Doone”, of course, but it provided a welcome break from analytical argument, however edifying. JSM’s analysis is, indeed, backed up by practical example, drawn from his experience (like John Ridd in “Lorna Doone”!) and his ideas are situated in a contemporary context. Could a pragmatist be counted a philosopher, I asked myself? In all the cogency of JSM’s exploration of the limitations and responsibilities of liberty - extended in the last section to the influence of government – I still hadn’t answered the question, but had stopped focusing on it, since the next essay, “Utilitarianism” was probably going to place the matter beyond doubt!
What stays with me after reading the Essay on Liberty was the image it evoked of Oscar Wilde (a follower of the philosophy of aestheticism) in prison, for “gross indecency”. This, for me, links with JSM’s almost Keatsian exposition of truth and usefulness (usefulness in the sense of contributing to the greater good). For Keats, “Beauty is truth, and truth beauty; that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know” (Ode on a Grecian Urn). JSM spends a long time making a case for “the lists to be kept open” for “the truth to reach us”. However, he points out that, in examining the truth of a belief not widely accepted by society,
“The utmost they (those who are on the side of received opinions) allow is an extenuation of its absolute necessity, or of the positive guilt of rejecting it”.
So when Oscar Wilde, who writes with wit, charm and heart-wrenching poignancy, might have said, “My nature is true, leads to my fulfilment, and it is also useful, because it leads to the creation and expression of the truth and beauty of my mind”, no one would have listened.
II
This failure in society to give unfamiliar or unpalatable truths a fair hearing leads on to the Essay on Utilitarianism. JSM, spends much of the essay defending his philosophy against misunderstanding and misinterpretation.
“The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.”
Now, a superficial criticism of this is that, forced to a logical conclusion, this would result in morality itself becoming a product of Epicurean thinking; but JSM lays bare with a surgeon’s knife the foundations of conscience and duty, morality and justice, which are inherent in the “Greatest Happiness Principle”. While believing that moral feelings are “not innate, but acquired” he allows the moral faculty to be, “if not part of our nature . . . a natural outgrowth from it”:
“But there is this basis of powerful natural sentiment; and this it is, which, when once the general happiness is recognised at the ethical standard, will constitute the strength of the utilitarian morality”.
Virtue, for Utilitarian moralists, is “at the very head of things which are good as means to the ultimate end”, although, also, a good in itself. The mind is “not in a right state, not in a state conformable to Utility, not in the state most conducive to the general happiness, unless it does love virtue in this manner – as a thing desirable in itself . . . “ and he goes on to build a list of elements of which the desire for happiness is made up.
“Happiness is not an abstract idea, but a concrete whole; and these are some of its parts”.
Mill admits the difficulties of reconciling justice to what he calls “expediency” in Utilitarian thinking (what leads to, or serves, the general good). I mention this word, “expediency”, because I think that in our day and age it has acquired negative connotations that were not intended in Mill’s use of the term. He explores the roots of justice in law and custom, dissecting definitions and applications, in legal rights, the validity of the law, the notion of ‘desert’ (deserving, in modern parlance), the concept of breaking faith, partiality and equality. Here is a fascinating paragraph on the birth of the concept of laws that ought to exist. For the ancient Hebrews, with their God-given law, this concept was not accessible; but to the Greeks and Romans, for instance,
“the sentiment of injustice came to be attached, not to all violations of law” (which, man-made, could be bad), “but only to violations of such laws as ought to exist but do not; and to laws themselves, if supposed to be contrary to what ought to be law.”
III
“Considerations on Representative Government” is a lengthy treatise. JSM demolishes different kinds of government before getting to the meat of his subject: how to form, elect and conduct representative government. Thanks to Ilse’s recommendation I have just bought a copy of John William’s “Augustus”. I’m looking forward to it all the more after J S Mill, on the subject of benign despots, writes:
“The despotism of Augustus prepared the Romans for Tiberius. If the whole tone of their character had not first been prostrated by nearly two generations of that mild slavery, they would probably have had spirit enough left to rebel against the more odious one.”
It was interesting to me also to read his analysis of bureaucratic governments, especially with regard to Russia and China, because, of course, his writing predates Communism. Mill’s summing up seems to be indicative of their susceptibility to the later bureaucracy of communism:
“The Russian Government is a characteristic exemplification of both the good and bad side of bureaucracy: its fixed maxims, directed with Roman perseverance to the same unflinchingly-pursued ends from age to age; the remarkable skill with which those ends are generally pursued; the frightful internal corruption, and the permanent organised hostility to improvements from without, which even the autocratic power of a vigorous-minded Emperor is seldom or ever sufficient to overcome; the patient obstructiveness of the body being in the long run more than a match for the fitful energy of one man. The Chinese Government, a bureaucracy of Mandarins is, as far as is known to us, another apparent example of the same qualities and defects.”
Having disposed of all other forms, Mill finally reaches representative government. I was impressed by his apt portrayal of the dangers of democracy, which are only too real for us in Britain today. For this reason I am including another quotation, even though this review is so long.
“A democracy has enough to do in providing itself with an amount of mental competency sufficient for its own proper work, that of superintendence and check.
How to obtain and secure this amount, is one of the questions to be taken into consideration in judging of the proper constitution of a representative body. In proportion as its composition fails to secure this amount, the assembly will encroach, by special acts, on the province of the executive; it will expel a good, or elevate and uphold a bad, ministry; it will connive at, or overlook, in them, abuses of trust, will be deluded by their false pretences, or will withhold support from those who endeavour to fulfil their trust conscientiously; it will countenance, or impose, a selfish, capricious and impulsive, a short-sighted, ignorant, and prejudiced general policy, foreign and domestic; it will abrogate good laws, or enact bad ones, let in new evils, or cling with perverse obstinacy to old; it will even, perhaps, under misleading impulses, momentary or permanent, emanating from itself or from its constituents, tolerate or connive at proceedings which set law aside altogether, in cases where equal justice would not be agreeable to popular feeling. Such are among the dangers of representative government, arising from a constitution of the representation which does not secure an adequate amount of intelligence and knowledge in the representative assembly.”
He might have added, “and its Prime Minister might even lie to the Queen” had the idea not been unthinkable in the Victorian era!
I cannot end this part of the review without mentioning the means whereby JS Mill sought to enable in a democracy the voice of the minorities. He would adopt the system of the single transferable vote (STV), devised by Mr Thomas Hare, which is now used in Scottish elections. I was attracted by this until I discovered how it was misused – abused – in Hong Kong, by the pro-Beijing Camp. John Stuart Mill does foresee that the STV can fail in this way:
“The constitution would therefore still be liable to the characteristic evils of class government: in a far less degree, assuredly, than that exclusive government by a class, which now usurps the name of democracy: but still, under no effective restraint, except what might be found in the good sense, moderation, and forbearance, of the class itself.”
Mill’s solution to this abuse involves a complicated management of the voting system, including the possibility of ‘weighed’ plural votes and indirect voting. What resonated with me here was his assertion that the vote is not a right, but a trust. Of course it is! I see it now! A vote as a right is mere selfishness, or whim, which could be bought or sold, as it was in England before the Electoral Reform Act of 1832. As a trust, the vote cannot be sold; it must be used not only for one’s own benefit, but for the public good.
“it is strictly a matter of duty; he is bound to give it according to his best and most conscientious opinion of the public good.”
IV
Mill, of course, was in favour of, and worked for, women’s suffrage. I turned the last few pages of the government treatise quickly, eagerly looking forward to the last essay, “On the Subjection of Women”. I found it deeply disturbing. Not because of Mill’s views – absolutely the contrary – he believed in every human possibility for women as for men - but because of what he describes as the everyday lot of women, whom he sees as worse off than slaves, who at least had the right to refuse their master their body (even if in practice this did not work too well). I kept thinking, “Thank goodness – thank goodness – it is not like that now” and then remembered that for many women in this world, it still is. Indispensable writings.
This is a wonderful, eloquent, powerful , wide-ranging essay on a subject that was obviously dear to Mill’s heart. I could write screeds on it. It led me straight to the superb film, “Effie Gray”. Effie, as the young wife of John Ruskin, suffered every mental torture and humiliation at the hands of her master, her husband. Mill must have known about this horrendous marriage, as its annulment was a public scandal. It will now lead me on to re-read Elizabeth Gaskell’s “North and South”, written around the same time as Mill was writing, and illustrating some of the issues he writes about.
The end of the book swings neatly back to the earlier essays on liberty and government.
I did go back to the end of “Considerations on Representative Government” to read it more carefully. I really can’t justify writing in more detail about it here, but it’s interesting that the treatise ends with an exposition of the role of The British East India Company in governing India; John Stuart Mill was its chief examiner until he resigned at the limitation of that role by Parliament. He admits it was not perfect; in the case of a subjugated country “there is but a choice of imperfections” but he was obviously greatly saddened by the change to a parliamentary government of India by politician in London, and it is the most personal part of his analysis.
A final, short, quote:
Di Meliora: “Heaven send us better times.”
I
My first thought as I began reading the essay, “On Liberty”, was whether JSM was a philosopher at all. There were nothing abstract that I could lay my hands on (so to speak); nothing that left my brain whirling and helpless with theoretical possibilities; nothing that soared to intellectual sublimity or forced one to the depths of human ‘angst’. There was common sense; there was rationality; there was minute observation and seemingly endless, patient, examination and laying out of argument; there was teaching without preaching, analysis without didacticism. I think of his work as ‘a setting forth’. I was reminded straight away of the opening passage of “Lorna Doone” (RD Blackmore) where John Ridd states:
“If anyone cares to read a simple tale told simply, I, John Ridd . . . . have seen and had a share in some doings of this neighbourhood, which I will try to set down in order, God sparing my life and memory”. . .
I then had to re-read “Lorna Doone”, of course, but it provided a welcome break from analytical argument, however edifying. JSM’s analysis is, indeed, backed up by practical example, drawn from his experience (like John Ridd in “Lorna Doone”!) and his ideas are situated in a contemporary context. Could a pragmatist be counted a philosopher, I asked myself? In all the cogency of JSM’s exploration of the limitations and responsibilities of liberty - extended in the last section to the influence of government – I still hadn’t answered the question, but had stopped focusing on it, since the next essay, “Utilitarianism” was probably going to place the matter beyond doubt!
What stays with me after reading the Essay on Liberty was the image it evoked of Oscar Wilde (a follower of the philosophy of aestheticism) in prison, for “gross indecency”. This, for me, links with JSM’s almost Keatsian exposition of truth and usefulness (usefulness in the sense of contributing to the greater good). For Keats, “Beauty is truth, and truth beauty; that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know” (Ode on a Grecian Urn). JSM spends a long time making a case for “the lists to be kept open” for “the truth to reach us”. However, he points out that, in examining the truth of a belief not widely accepted by society,
“The utmost they (those who are on the side of received opinions) allow is an extenuation of its absolute necessity, or of the positive guilt of rejecting it”.
So when Oscar Wilde, who writes with wit, charm and heart-wrenching poignancy, might have said, “My nature is true, leads to my fulfilment, and it is also useful, because it leads to the creation and expression of the truth and beauty of my mind”, no one would have listened.
II
This failure in society to give unfamiliar or unpalatable truths a fair hearing leads on to the Essay on Utilitarianism. JSM, spends much of the essay defending his philosophy against misunderstanding and misinterpretation.
“The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.”
Now, a superficial criticism of this is that, forced to a logical conclusion, this would result in morality itself becoming a product of Epicurean thinking; but JSM lays bare with a surgeon’s knife the foundations of conscience and duty, morality and justice, which are inherent in the “Greatest Happiness Principle”. While believing that moral feelings are “not innate, but acquired” he allows the moral faculty to be, “if not part of our nature . . . a natural outgrowth from it”:
“But there is this basis of powerful natural sentiment; and this it is, which, when once the general happiness is recognised at the ethical standard, will constitute the strength of the utilitarian morality”.
Virtue, for Utilitarian moralists, is “at the very head of things which are good as means to the ultimate end”, although, also, a good in itself. The mind is “not in a right state, not in a state conformable to Utility, not in the state most conducive to the general happiness, unless it does love virtue in this manner – as a thing desirable in itself . . . “ and he goes on to build a list of elements of which the desire for happiness is made up.
“Happiness is not an abstract idea, but a concrete whole; and these are some of its parts”.
Mill admits the difficulties of reconciling justice to what he calls “expediency” in Utilitarian thinking (what leads to, or serves, the general good). I mention this word, “expediency”, because I think that in our day and age it has acquired negative connotations that were not intended in Mill’s use of the term. He explores the roots of justice in law and custom, dissecting definitions and applications, in legal rights, the validity of the law, the notion of ‘desert’ (deserving, in modern parlance), the concept of breaking faith, partiality and equality. Here is a fascinating paragraph on the birth of the concept of laws that ought to exist. For the ancient Hebrews, with their God-given law, this concept was not accessible; but to the Greeks and Romans, for instance,
“the sentiment of injustice came to be attached, not to all violations of law” (which, man-made, could be bad), “but only to violations of such laws as ought to exist but do not; and to laws themselves, if supposed to be contrary to what ought to be law.”
III
“Considerations on Representative Government” is a lengthy treatise. JSM demolishes different kinds of government before getting to the meat of his subject: how to form, elect and conduct representative government. Thanks to Ilse’s recommendation I have just bought a copy of John William’s “Augustus”. I’m looking forward to it all the more after J S Mill, on the subject of benign despots, writes:
“The despotism of Augustus prepared the Romans for Tiberius. If the whole tone of their character had not first been prostrated by nearly two generations of that mild slavery, they would probably have had spirit enough left to rebel against the more odious one.”
It was interesting to me also to read his analysis of bureaucratic governments, especially with regard to Russia and China, because, of course, his writing predates Communism. Mill’s summing up seems to be indicative of their susceptibility to the later bureaucracy of communism:
“The Russian Government is a characteristic exemplification of both the good and bad side of bureaucracy: its fixed maxims, directed with Roman perseverance to the same unflinchingly-pursued ends from age to age; the remarkable skill with which those ends are generally pursued; the frightful internal corruption, and the permanent organised hostility to improvements from without, which even the autocratic power of a vigorous-minded Emperor is seldom or ever sufficient to overcome; the patient obstructiveness of the body being in the long run more than a match for the fitful energy of one man. The Chinese Government, a bureaucracy of Mandarins is, as far as is known to us, another apparent example of the same qualities and defects.”
Having disposed of all other forms, Mill finally reaches representative government. I was impressed by his apt portrayal of the dangers of democracy, which are only too real for us in Britain today. For this reason I am including another quotation, even though this review is so long.
“A democracy has enough to do in providing itself with an amount of mental competency sufficient for its own proper work, that of superintendence and check.
How to obtain and secure this amount, is one of the questions to be taken into consideration in judging of the proper constitution of a representative body. In proportion as its composition fails to secure this amount, the assembly will encroach, by special acts, on the province of the executive; it will expel a good, or elevate and uphold a bad, ministry; it will connive at, or overlook, in them, abuses of trust, will be deluded by their false pretences, or will withhold support from those who endeavour to fulfil their trust conscientiously; it will countenance, or impose, a selfish, capricious and impulsive, a short-sighted, ignorant, and prejudiced general policy, foreign and domestic; it will abrogate good laws, or enact bad ones, let in new evils, or cling with perverse obstinacy to old; it will even, perhaps, under misleading impulses, momentary or permanent, emanating from itself or from its constituents, tolerate or connive at proceedings which set law aside altogether, in cases where equal justice would not be agreeable to popular feeling. Such are among the dangers of representative government, arising from a constitution of the representation which does not secure an adequate amount of intelligence and knowledge in the representative assembly.”
He might have added, “and its Prime Minister might even lie to the Queen” had the idea not been unthinkable in the Victorian era!
I cannot end this part of the review without mentioning the means whereby JS Mill sought to enable in a democracy the voice of the minorities. He would adopt the system of the single transferable vote (STV), devised by Mr Thomas Hare, which is now used in Scottish elections. I was attracted by this until I discovered how it was misused – abused – in Hong Kong, by the pro-Beijing Camp. John Stuart Mill does foresee that the STV can fail in this way:
“The constitution would therefore still be liable to the characteristic evils of class government: in a far less degree, assuredly, than that exclusive government by a class, which now usurps the name of democracy: but still, under no effective restraint, except what might be found in the good sense, moderation, and forbearance, of the class itself.”
Mill’s solution to this abuse involves a complicated management of the voting system, including the possibility of ‘weighed’ plural votes and indirect voting. What resonated with me here was his assertion that the vote is not a right, but a trust. Of course it is! I see it now! A vote as a right is mere selfishness, or whim, which could be bought or sold, as it was in England before the Electoral Reform Act of 1832. As a trust, the vote cannot be sold; it must be used not only for one’s own benefit, but for the public good.
“it is strictly a matter of duty; he is bound to give it according to his best and most conscientious opinion of the public good.”
IV
Mill, of course, was in favour of, and worked for, women’s suffrage. I turned the last few pages of the government treatise quickly, eagerly looking forward to the last essay, “On the Subjection of Women”. I found it deeply disturbing. Not because of Mill’s views – absolutely the contrary – he believed in every human possibility for women as for men - but because of what he describes as the everyday lot of women, whom he sees as worse off than slaves, who at least had the right to refuse their master their body (even if in practice this did not work too well). I kept thinking, “Thank goodness – thank goodness – it is not like that now” and then remembered that for many women in this world, it still is. Indispensable writings.
This is a wonderful, eloquent, powerful , wide-ranging essay on a subject that was obviously dear to Mill’s heart. I could write screeds on it. It led me straight to the superb film, “Effie Gray”. Effie, as the young wife of John Ruskin, suffered every mental torture and humiliation at the hands of her master, her husband. Mill must have known about this horrendous marriage, as its annulment was a public scandal. It will now lead me on to re-read Elizabeth Gaskell’s “North and South”, written around the same time as Mill was writing, and illustrating some of the issues he writes about.
The end of the book swings neatly back to the earlier essays on liberty and government.
I did go back to the end of “Considerations on Representative Government” to read it more carefully. I really can’t justify writing in more detail about it here, but it’s interesting that the treatise ends with an exposition of the role of The British East India Company in governing India; John Stuart Mill was its chief examiner until he resigned at the limitation of that role by Parliament. He admits it was not perfect; in the case of a subjugated country “there is but a choice of imperfections” but he was obviously greatly saddened by the change to a parliamentary government of India by politician in London, and it is the most personal part of his analysis.
A final, short, quote:
Di Meliora: “Heaven send us better times.”
October 23, 2021
On Liberty
The main thesis of this essay is that society should not exercise power over individuals, either legally or otherwise, except when the wellbeing of someone other than the person in question is at stake. This includes free speech, freedom of religion, and other types of freedom. For example, Mill discusses how this would apply to laws against sale of alcohol, and concludes such laws shouldn't generally exist, but maybe certain people who have shown they harm others when drunk shouldn't be able to buy alcohol anymore.
Mill gives a lot of benefits of liberty that I hadn't really considered, despite this essay being very old and influential. He is not claiming that infringing liberty is unfair on principle, and thus shouldn't be done even if the benefit to the person would justify it. Rather, he is arguing that liberty as a policy does benefit all of society the most, even when it may seem otherwise.
In favor of freedom of speech, he first points out that any opinion which authority attempts to suppress may possibly be true, so it would be safer not to suppress speech. This is quite a familiar argument. But what if somehow you knew for sure which side of the question was correct? Mill thinks free speech is still beneficial. Without regular discussion, people will cease to fully understand the reasoning behind the correct belief, and will thus only hold the correct belief in a superficial way. They may even forget the full meaning of the correct belief, and thus be parroting empty sentences rather than actually holding a belief at all. This is an interesting point I hadn't thought about much.
On the question of freedom of behavior, Mill says that on questions of "social morality" (cases where a person's behavior affects others), public opinion, "though often wrong, is likely to be still oftener right; because on such questions [the public] are only required to judge of their own interests." However, "on questions of self-regarding conduct" (cases where a person's behavior affects only themself), the public is much more likely to be wrong, "for in these cases public opinion means, at the best, some people's opinion of what is good or bad for other people; while very often it does not even mean that; the public, with the most perfect indifference, passing over the pleasure or convenience of those whose conduct they censure, and considering only their own preference." I agree that the main problem with paternalistic policies is that they risk not actually being good for the people they are meant to benefit, and I thought this was a good way of expressing it.
One interesting feature throughout is that Mill treats legal restrictions and social sanctions similarly - both are society compelling an individual to do something. On the one hand I can see why. In many cases social sanctions are even more compelling than laws. Which would you rather, all your friends think you're a jackass, or you pay a fine? On the other hand, it's very clear what is a law and what isn't. Social sanctions aren't as clearly defined. At first, I was wondering where the line is between making it clear you disapprove of a behavior and socially compelling a person to change their ways. Later, Mill clarified that he draws the distinction between natural consequences and purposeful punitiveness. If someone handles their own affairs badly, you may reasonably think less of them and even want to associate with them less. But you should not go beyond that to purposefully try to punish their behavior, or convince others to do so. I think this actually leaves room for a whole lot of social sanctioning, but I can see why it's a nice distinction to draw.
Overall, I think Mill's arguments in favor of liberty make sense, and are real benefits of liberty. But I think drawing a clear line about what types of behavior should be socially compelled, rather than considering costs and benefits on a case-by-case basis, isn't going to work out very well. Mill's rule actually leaves open the option to compel behavior in almost every case, because when does a person's behavior truly not affect other people? Mill addresses this objection, and says some further stuff about which types of effects on others really count. But I found this section unconvincing, and concluded the line cannot be as bright as he is trying to make it.
Utilitarianism
There were two main aspects of this essay I found interesting -why does Mill prefer hedonic utilitarianism over other variants, and why does he think utilitarianism is correct at all, vs. Justice, which he views as the primary alternative ethical consideration.
Mill has his own twist on hedonic utilitarianism, arguing that some types of happiness or pleasure count for more. Specifically if, out of all the people who have experienced both of two pleasures, all or almost all prefer one of them, that is the more desirable pleasure. This actually feels like a hybrid of hedonic and preference utilitarianism to me, since it indirectly takes preferences into account.
It's interesting to think about what answer Mill would give in cases where preference and hedonic utilitarianism differ. One canonical example is wireheading. The case is complicated because no one has actually experienced wireheading, so we have to guess whether we trust people's claims that they would prefer not to wirehead without having experienced it. Suppose that almost all people who actually experienced wireheading would still prefer their ordinary lives over continuing to wirehead - then Mill would claim that ordinary lives are a higher pleasure than wireheading, and thus more desirable. This also seems consistent with the other examples Mill gives of higher pleasures, such as humans preferring to remain human rather than becoming contented pigs. The "almost all" part seems weird though. So there are a few people who prefer wireheading - but it is not desirable for them to wirehead because of all the people who don't prefer it? It seems more consistent to me to go full preference utilitarian, and say it is better for the people who prefer wireheading to wirehead, and those who don't, don't. I also suspect a lot of people who say they wouldn't want to wirehead would change their tune if they could actually try it, but I suspect Mill would disagree with me on that.
I also think it's kind of weird to call all types of desirable experience "happiness" or "pleasure". For example, I like to read sad books and cry, but I wouldn't call the experience happy or pleasurable. I suspect Mill would call this a type of pleasure, in which case I'm just quibbling over definitions, but it's hard to be sure.
Mill's take on utilitarianism vs. justice is that actually, the principle of utilitarianism is the best way to decide which outcomes are truly just, and therefore the two are never truly at odds. To me, this seems dismissive of the many cases in which there is an intuitive difference. For example, consider the famous case of the doctor who has a chance to save four people's lives by killing one healthy person and harvesting their organs. This seems utilitarian, but unjust to the healthy person. Or consider whether a person should be morally required to donate all their resources above the bare necessities for subsistence to people who need it more. This seems to be the correct utilitarian answer, but it also seems unjust to require so much of one person. In the first case, I suspect Mill would say that killing the healthy person would not actually be the correct utilitarian outcome. He argues that security is something no human can possibly do without, since we depend upon it for all value in life beyond the passing moment, since nothing but the present moment could be of any worth to us if we could be deprived of everything the next instant by someone stronger. Based on this, he considers providing security to each person the utmost utilitarian concern. However, this is why the thought experiment typically specifies that no one would find out what the doctor had done, so that others would not have their sense of security disturbed. This thought experiment came after Mill's time, so it's not his fault he didn't address it, but I don't agree with his that utilitarianism and justice can be so easily unified. In the second example, I'm not sure what Mill would say.
I think I have a similar objection to Mill's conception of utilitarianism here as I did in his essay "On Liberty." Mill claims that utilitarianism can be reconciled with broad principles such as justice, or liberty. However, even if they might frequently align, there are going to be edge cases where injustice or illiberty results in the greater total happiness. In those cases, you have to either give up on utilitarianism or bite a bullet. You can't just claim that the intuitively appealing answers are always the correct utilitarian answer as well.
Considerations on Representative Government
Mill starts by arguing that representative government is the ideal form of government for two reasons. The first is the standard reason people give, that it results in better government. But Mill considers his second reason even more important - it raises people's intellectual engagement by giving them something important to think about. It sounds like a nice idea. In practice, I'm not convinced it voting has much affect on how deeply people think about things.
Then Mill goes on to discuss a wide variety of practical questions related to representative government - who should be able to vote, how to avoid tyranny of the majority, whether votes should be secret or public, whether people should vote directly for their officials or for electors who do the voting, how to handle colonies, and more. Sometimes his opinions felt a bit dated, but more often they still felt surprisingly relevant.
Regarding who should be able to vote, Mill thinks everyone should who can read, write, and do arithmetic, which should be put within reach of almost everyone by public education. He also thinks people with intellectually demanding jobs, impressive levels of education, or those who can pass an exacting test, should have votes that count for more. I agree that a big problem with democracy is that better informed people don't get any more say than worse informed, but these didn't seem like very good ways of addressing the problem.
Mill briefly mentions the issue of a democracy supporting policies that benefit the majority, but hurt the minority by more than enough to outweigh the benefit. However, he never really gets around to addressing the issue, because he gets distracted by the worse problem where actually only a majority of a majority (aka a minority) are needed to enact a measure, and discusses better voting systems that could address this. I definitely see the reasonableness of that approach. Why worry about flaws in the perfect democratic system before you've even stopped using first-past-the-post voting?
Mill believes that votes should be public, because voting is not a right, but a duty. He thinks making ballots secret has a psychological effect where people feel they have the right to vote however they please, including based on their own selfish interests or which candidate they personally like most. After all, how can they have a duty to the community to vote a certain way if the community doesn't even have a right to know who they voted for? Also, Mill thinks knowing that you could be asked why you voted a certain way would prompt people to vote for reasons they could defend, even if no one actually ends up asking. Mill acknowledges that public votes are more susceptible to coercion and bribery, but thinks those are less important in practice in England at the time. I tend to favor secret voting, mostly due to concerns about social pressure among peer groups, but I thought Mill brought up interesting benefits to public voting that I hadn't considered.
Mill thinks that indirect election, such as technically happens in the US presidential election, is a good idea in theory but doesn't work well in practice, partially because electors just end up pledging themselves to specific candidates. His one exception is the way the US senate used to work, being elected by the state legislatures rather than popular vote. He argues that people will vote for the state legislature based on state issues, thus reaping the theoretical benefits of indirect voting. This made me interested in why we did away with the practice. It seems at least partially because people were paying too much attention to federal senator candidates when voting for state legislators.
The Subjection of Women
Mill thinks women should have equal legal rights to men. He was definitely ahead of his time, but this essay was the least interesting to me. Most of his arguments are now generally accepted as true (e.g. the idea that you can't conclude that women are naturally worse at something just because they appear worse at it in an oppressive society), so I didn't find as many novel perspectives as in the other essays in this collection.
The main thesis of this essay is that society should not exercise power over individuals, either legally or otherwise, except when the wellbeing of someone other than the person in question is at stake. This includes free speech, freedom of religion, and other types of freedom. For example, Mill discusses how this would apply to laws against sale of alcohol, and concludes such laws shouldn't generally exist, but maybe certain people who have shown they harm others when drunk shouldn't be able to buy alcohol anymore.
Mill gives a lot of benefits of liberty that I hadn't really considered, despite this essay being very old and influential. He is not claiming that infringing liberty is unfair on principle, and thus shouldn't be done even if the benefit to the person would justify it. Rather, he is arguing that liberty as a policy does benefit all of society the most, even when it may seem otherwise.
In favor of freedom of speech, he first points out that any opinion which authority attempts to suppress may possibly be true, so it would be safer not to suppress speech. This is quite a familiar argument. But what if somehow you knew for sure which side of the question was correct? Mill thinks free speech is still beneficial. Without regular discussion, people will cease to fully understand the reasoning behind the correct belief, and will thus only hold the correct belief in a superficial way. They may even forget the full meaning of the correct belief, and thus be parroting empty sentences rather than actually holding a belief at all. This is an interesting point I hadn't thought about much.
On the question of freedom of behavior, Mill says that on questions of "social morality" (cases where a person's behavior affects others), public opinion, "though often wrong, is likely to be still oftener right; because on such questions [the public] are only required to judge of their own interests." However, "on questions of self-regarding conduct" (cases where a person's behavior affects only themself), the public is much more likely to be wrong, "for in these cases public opinion means, at the best, some people's opinion of what is good or bad for other people; while very often it does not even mean that; the public, with the most perfect indifference, passing over the pleasure or convenience of those whose conduct they censure, and considering only their own preference." I agree that the main problem with paternalistic policies is that they risk not actually being good for the people they are meant to benefit, and I thought this was a good way of expressing it.
One interesting feature throughout is that Mill treats legal restrictions and social sanctions similarly - both are society compelling an individual to do something. On the one hand I can see why. In many cases social sanctions are even more compelling than laws. Which would you rather, all your friends think you're a jackass, or you pay a fine? On the other hand, it's very clear what is a law and what isn't. Social sanctions aren't as clearly defined. At first, I was wondering where the line is between making it clear you disapprove of a behavior and socially compelling a person to change their ways. Later, Mill clarified that he draws the distinction between natural consequences and purposeful punitiveness. If someone handles their own affairs badly, you may reasonably think less of them and even want to associate with them less. But you should not go beyond that to purposefully try to punish their behavior, or convince others to do so. I think this actually leaves room for a whole lot of social sanctioning, but I can see why it's a nice distinction to draw.
Overall, I think Mill's arguments in favor of liberty make sense, and are real benefits of liberty. But I think drawing a clear line about what types of behavior should be socially compelled, rather than considering costs and benefits on a case-by-case basis, isn't going to work out very well. Mill's rule actually leaves open the option to compel behavior in almost every case, because when does a person's behavior truly not affect other people? Mill addresses this objection, and says some further stuff about which types of effects on others really count. But I found this section unconvincing, and concluded the line cannot be as bright as he is trying to make it.
Utilitarianism
There were two main aspects of this essay I found interesting -why does Mill prefer hedonic utilitarianism over other variants, and why does he think utilitarianism is correct at all, vs. Justice, which he views as the primary alternative ethical consideration.
Mill has his own twist on hedonic utilitarianism, arguing that some types of happiness or pleasure count for more. Specifically if, out of all the people who have experienced both of two pleasures, all or almost all prefer one of them, that is the more desirable pleasure. This actually feels like a hybrid of hedonic and preference utilitarianism to me, since it indirectly takes preferences into account.
It's interesting to think about what answer Mill would give in cases where preference and hedonic utilitarianism differ. One canonical example is wireheading. The case is complicated because no one has actually experienced wireheading, so we have to guess whether we trust people's claims that they would prefer not to wirehead without having experienced it. Suppose that almost all people who actually experienced wireheading would still prefer their ordinary lives over continuing to wirehead - then Mill would claim that ordinary lives are a higher pleasure than wireheading, and thus more desirable. This also seems consistent with the other examples Mill gives of higher pleasures, such as humans preferring to remain human rather than becoming contented pigs. The "almost all" part seems weird though. So there are a few people who prefer wireheading - but it is not desirable for them to wirehead because of all the people who don't prefer it? It seems more consistent to me to go full preference utilitarian, and say it is better for the people who prefer wireheading to wirehead, and those who don't, don't. I also suspect a lot of people who say they wouldn't want to wirehead would change their tune if they could actually try it, but I suspect Mill would disagree with me on that.
I also think it's kind of weird to call all types of desirable experience "happiness" or "pleasure". For example, I like to read sad books and cry, but I wouldn't call the experience happy or pleasurable. I suspect Mill would call this a type of pleasure, in which case I'm just quibbling over definitions, but it's hard to be sure.
Mill's take on utilitarianism vs. justice is that actually, the principle of utilitarianism is the best way to decide which outcomes are truly just, and therefore the two are never truly at odds. To me, this seems dismissive of the many cases in which there is an intuitive difference. For example, consider the famous case of the doctor who has a chance to save four people's lives by killing one healthy person and harvesting their organs. This seems utilitarian, but unjust to the healthy person. Or consider whether a person should be morally required to donate all their resources above the bare necessities for subsistence to people who need it more. This seems to be the correct utilitarian answer, but it also seems unjust to require so much of one person. In the first case, I suspect Mill would say that killing the healthy person would not actually be the correct utilitarian outcome. He argues that security is something no human can possibly do without, since we depend upon it for all value in life beyond the passing moment, since nothing but the present moment could be of any worth to us if we could be deprived of everything the next instant by someone stronger. Based on this, he considers providing security to each person the utmost utilitarian concern. However, this is why the thought experiment typically specifies that no one would find out what the doctor had done, so that others would not have their sense of security disturbed. This thought experiment came after Mill's time, so it's not his fault he didn't address it, but I don't agree with his that utilitarianism and justice can be so easily unified. In the second example, I'm not sure what Mill would say.
I think I have a similar objection to Mill's conception of utilitarianism here as I did in his essay "On Liberty." Mill claims that utilitarianism can be reconciled with broad principles such as justice, or liberty. However, even if they might frequently align, there are going to be edge cases where injustice or illiberty results in the greater total happiness. In those cases, you have to either give up on utilitarianism or bite a bullet. You can't just claim that the intuitively appealing answers are always the correct utilitarian answer as well.
Considerations on Representative Government
Mill starts by arguing that representative government is the ideal form of government for two reasons. The first is the standard reason people give, that it results in better government. But Mill considers his second reason even more important - it raises people's intellectual engagement by giving them something important to think about. It sounds like a nice idea. In practice, I'm not convinced it voting has much affect on how deeply people think about things.
Then Mill goes on to discuss a wide variety of practical questions related to representative government - who should be able to vote, how to avoid tyranny of the majority, whether votes should be secret or public, whether people should vote directly for their officials or for electors who do the voting, how to handle colonies, and more. Sometimes his opinions felt a bit dated, but more often they still felt surprisingly relevant.
Regarding who should be able to vote, Mill thinks everyone should who can read, write, and do arithmetic, which should be put within reach of almost everyone by public education. He also thinks people with intellectually demanding jobs, impressive levels of education, or those who can pass an exacting test, should have votes that count for more. I agree that a big problem with democracy is that better informed people don't get any more say than worse informed, but these didn't seem like very good ways of addressing the problem.
Mill briefly mentions the issue of a democracy supporting policies that benefit the majority, but hurt the minority by more than enough to outweigh the benefit. However, he never really gets around to addressing the issue, because he gets distracted by the worse problem where actually only a majority of a majority (aka a minority) are needed to enact a measure, and discusses better voting systems that could address this. I definitely see the reasonableness of that approach. Why worry about flaws in the perfect democratic system before you've even stopped using first-past-the-post voting?
Mill believes that votes should be public, because voting is not a right, but a duty. He thinks making ballots secret has a psychological effect where people feel they have the right to vote however they please, including based on their own selfish interests or which candidate they personally like most. After all, how can they have a duty to the community to vote a certain way if the community doesn't even have a right to know who they voted for? Also, Mill thinks knowing that you could be asked why you voted a certain way would prompt people to vote for reasons they could defend, even if no one actually ends up asking. Mill acknowledges that public votes are more susceptible to coercion and bribery, but thinks those are less important in practice in England at the time. I tend to favor secret voting, mostly due to concerns about social pressure among peer groups, but I thought Mill brought up interesting benefits to public voting that I hadn't considered.
Mill thinks that indirect election, such as technically happens in the US presidential election, is a good idea in theory but doesn't work well in practice, partially because electors just end up pledging themselves to specific candidates. His one exception is the way the US senate used to work, being elected by the state legislatures rather than popular vote. He argues that people will vote for the state legislature based on state issues, thus reaping the theoretical benefits of indirect voting. This made me interested in why we did away with the practice. It seems at least partially because people were paying too much attention to federal senator candidates when voting for state legislators.
The Subjection of Women
Mill thinks women should have equal legal rights to men. He was definitely ahead of his time, but this essay was the least interesting to me. Most of his arguments are now generally accepted as true (e.g. the idea that you can't conclude that women are naturally worse at something just because they appear worse at it in an oppressive society), so I didn't find as many novel perspectives as in the other essays in this collection.
April 4, 2017
I was reading On Liberty from this collection, the first time I've read this classic work. I'm surprised I didn't read it in high school or college, when it's message about individualism would have been more inspiring. At my current phase in life, I have a more community-based approach to ethics.
Mill's views seem naive in retrospect. His ideal of individual liberty does not address systemic problems of poverty, racism, etc. So many of his ideas, on the left when written, would resonate with some members of the right at the moment.
Mill also possesses the naivete so common in post-Enlightenment liberalism that education would solve most problems by teaching people to be rational and pursue their best interests. He believes that over time as the truth of things is revealed, people will come to more agreement. Clearly this has not happened. He underestimates brute forces and ignorance. He underestimates the power of the majority to undo the progressive politics he advocates. He does not foresee Trump.
I've never been a big fan of Mill. He was clearly influential in his time and is important to the history of liberal democracy, but I believe there are more sophisticated thinkers in that history. I don't care for his book Utilitarianism and chafe whenever I have to teach it. His Metaphysics is a joke, in my opinion. I don't think that Mill's work will remain in the canon long term.
Mill's views seem naive in retrospect. His ideal of individual liberty does not address systemic problems of poverty, racism, etc. So many of his ideas, on the left when written, would resonate with some members of the right at the moment.
Mill also possesses the naivete so common in post-Enlightenment liberalism that education would solve most problems by teaching people to be rational and pursue their best interests. He believes that over time as the truth of things is revealed, people will come to more agreement. Clearly this has not happened. He underestimates brute forces and ignorance. He underestimates the power of the majority to undo the progressive politics he advocates. He does not foresee Trump.
I've never been a big fan of Mill. He was clearly influential in his time and is important to the history of liberal democracy, but I believe there are more sophisticated thinkers in that history. I don't care for his book Utilitarianism and chafe whenever I have to teach it. His Metaphysics is a joke, in my opinion. I don't think that Mill's work will remain in the canon long term.
March 19, 2017
I guess the essential Mill anyone interested in liberalism (or not) should read? I have to admit that my admiration and awe for the ideas defended here were strong enough to keep on reading but it was hard, because the writing style does impose a challenge. I had the same experience with Darwin. Sometimes swift and to the point (marvellous), but often repetitive and tedious. Some of his ideas are considered antiliberal by todays' standards (I was a bit disappointed at some point), but I wonder what he would have written today.
Still a mustread for anyone who loves liberty, equal rights and social justice.
Still a mustread for anyone who loves liberty, equal rights and social justice.
January 16, 2022
1/3
There’s obviously a LOT in these essays. As expected, I vibed most with The Subjection of Women, but curiously I found more meat in the Considerations on Representative Government. Nothing Mill says in Subjection is new to me – although it’s always heartening to hear it from a man in Ye Olde Tymes. Representative Government, on the other hand, is based on Mill’s analysis of the contemporary government of extremely limited suffrage and how he thinks it could be improved. He is broadly in favour of minimal state intervention in private life, which is undoubtedly informed by his own personal experience in co-habiting with a woman who was married to someone else. This, really, forms one of the two prongs of concern I have with philosophy in general: that each individual author fails to recognise and highlight the circumstances that lead to them forming that particular opinion. (The other is that a lot of the opinions are too broad. You can stick to one specific instance without trying to replicate the example on wider and wider variables.)
INTRODUCTION
A life of virtue indirectly achieves happiness.
Mill is pro-punishment as a deterrent in society.
ON LIBERTY
Introductory
Nature of the power that can be exercised by society on the individual
Historically liberty was protection against tyranny of political rulers.
Rulers’ supremacy was necessary but dangerous; not contested but curtailed.
Liberty is this limitation.
Citizens have immunity/rights, infringing of which justifies rebellion.
Constitutional checks.
Now the state is the people’s tenant, and rulers identify with the people.
The people’s power is the nation’s and this needs no limitations.
In practice the people in power aren’t the same as those over whom it’s exercised.
The active majority can abuse the rest, therefore precautions are needed.
Tyranny of majority is a society which executes its own mandates and from which there is no escape.
Where to place a limit on society’s rules?
They are self evident and self justifying; the standard of management is personal preference.
Personal preference dictates the impropriety of government interference.
The only reason to interfere with liberty is self protection.
Free society requires: liberty of thought, liberty of expression, liberty of taste, liberty of combination with others.
The tendency is to strengthen society and diminish the power of the individual.
II: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion
Silencing opinion robs humanity; if right, correct yourself, if wrong, clarity of your position.
All silencing of discussion is on an assumption of infallibility.
Arguments: prohibiting what they think pernicious fails to act on their conscience; we must assume an opinion to guide our conduct. But! An unrefuted opinion can be because no one successfully contests it OR because no one is ALLOWED to.
Wisdom requires experience and discussion; correcting and completing opinions by comparing them to others.
Unless reasons are good for an extreme case, they aren’t good for any case.
Folly to call a proposition certain if anyone would deny it if permitted.
Opinions are protected from public attack not because of truth but because of usefulness to society. Only ‘bad men’ would want to question them, and so can be silence with impunity.
If you only know your own side, and can’t refute the other side, you have no basis to prefer your side.
Early Christianity was believed because they were persecuted.
People tend to stop thinking about things when they’re no longer doubtful.
Negative logics points out flaws, and is neglected.
Conflicting doctrines often share the truth.
Christianity in the Bible refers to Judiacal/Greek/Roman ethics.
‘Christian’ ethics are much later than Christ.
It makes human morality selfish through punishment/hell and reward/heaven; there is no room for the interests of other people.
Public obligation again derives from Greek and Roman thought.
Pretension of part of the truth to be the whoel.
Valuable moral teaching exist in pre- and non-Christians.
It is more important to protect from attack those expressing dissent, or no one will.
Judge each case individually.
III: Of Individuality
Liberty of individuals is limited by them not making a nuisance of themselves.
If you follow custom, you make no choice, and do not develop moral or mental powers.
Calvinist mentality is that humans suck, so only value is obtained by obedience to authority.
Public opinion is collective mediocrity, dispensed by newspapers, not religion etc.
Diversity and individuality are necessary for human development and social progression.
IV: Of the Limits to Authority of Society over the Individual
We have the right to choose a society congenial to us.
Duty to oneself is self respect, for which you aren’t accountable to others.
Ideal public only wants abstinence from conduct that is universally condemned.
God abominates the unbeliever but also the believer who lets him be.
There’s obviously a LOT in these essays. As expected, I vibed most with The Subjection of Women, but curiously I found more meat in the Considerations on Representative Government. Nothing Mill says in Subjection is new to me – although it’s always heartening to hear it from a man in Ye Olde Tymes. Representative Government, on the other hand, is based on Mill’s analysis of the contemporary government of extremely limited suffrage and how he thinks it could be improved. He is broadly in favour of minimal state intervention in private life, which is undoubtedly informed by his own personal experience in co-habiting with a woman who was married to someone else. This, really, forms one of the two prongs of concern I have with philosophy in general: that each individual author fails to recognise and highlight the circumstances that lead to them forming that particular opinion. (The other is that a lot of the opinions are too broad. You can stick to one specific instance without trying to replicate the example on wider and wider variables.)
INTRODUCTION
A life of virtue indirectly achieves happiness.
Mill is pro-punishment as a deterrent in society.
ON LIBERTY
Introductory
Nature of the power that can be exercised by society on the individual
Historically liberty was protection against tyranny of political rulers.
Rulers’ supremacy was necessary but dangerous; not contested but curtailed.
Liberty is this limitation.
Citizens have immunity/rights, infringing of which justifies rebellion.
Constitutional checks.
Now the state is the people’s tenant, and rulers identify with the people.
The people’s power is the nation’s and this needs no limitations.
In practice the people in power aren’t the same as those over whom it’s exercised.
The active majority can abuse the rest, therefore precautions are needed.
Tyranny of majority is a society which executes its own mandates and from which there is no escape.
Where to place a limit on society’s rules?
They are self evident and self justifying; the standard of management is personal preference.
Personal preference dictates the impropriety of government interference.
The only reason to interfere with liberty is self protection.
Free society requires: liberty of thought, liberty of expression, liberty of taste, liberty of combination with others.
The tendency is to strengthen society and diminish the power of the individual.
II: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion
Silencing opinion robs humanity; if right, correct yourself, if wrong, clarity of your position.
All silencing of discussion is on an assumption of infallibility.
Arguments: prohibiting what they think pernicious fails to act on their conscience; we must assume an opinion to guide our conduct. But! An unrefuted opinion can be because no one successfully contests it OR because no one is ALLOWED to.
Wisdom requires experience and discussion; correcting and completing opinions by comparing them to others.
Unless reasons are good for an extreme case, they aren’t good for any case.
Folly to call a proposition certain if anyone would deny it if permitted.
Opinions are protected from public attack not because of truth but because of usefulness to society. Only ‘bad men’ would want to question them, and so can be silence with impunity.
If you only know your own side, and can’t refute the other side, you have no basis to prefer your side.
Early Christianity was believed because they were persecuted.
People tend to stop thinking about things when they’re no longer doubtful.
Negative logics points out flaws, and is neglected.
Conflicting doctrines often share the truth.
Christianity in the Bible refers to Judiacal/Greek/Roman ethics.
‘Christian’ ethics are much later than Christ.
It makes human morality selfish through punishment/hell and reward/heaven; there is no room for the interests of other people.
Public obligation again derives from Greek and Roman thought.
Pretension of part of the truth to be the whoel.
Valuable moral teaching exist in pre- and non-Christians.
It is more important to protect from attack those expressing dissent, or no one will.
Judge each case individually.
III: Of Individuality
Liberty of individuals is limited by them not making a nuisance of themselves.
If you follow custom, you make no choice, and do not develop moral or mental powers.
Calvinist mentality is that humans suck, so only value is obtained by obedience to authority.
Public opinion is collective mediocrity, dispensed by newspapers, not religion etc.
Diversity and individuality are necessary for human development and social progression.
IV: Of the Limits to Authority of Society over the Individual
We have the right to choose a society congenial to us.
Duty to oneself is self respect, for which you aren’t accountable to others.
Ideal public only wants abstinence from conduct that is universally condemned.
God abominates the unbeliever but also the believer who lets him be.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 30, 2022
On Liberty: Mill's basic argument here is pretty well summed up in the Introductory section, and then the rest of the essay is basically elaboration, justification, exemplification, and application. Essentially the argument is that people--adults capable of making their own informed decisions, as Mill makes clear--should be free to do whatever they want as long as their actions (or inactions) don't harm another individual or society at large. He makes the case that society has a binding interest to prevent the individual from harming others, and that by virtue of living within society, the individual owes certain duties to that society, such as not harming others, paying taxes, defending society when necessary, etc.
Essentially, this is a utilitarian approach to libertarianism. Not the version of libertarianism generally espoused by right wingers in the US--which essentially cloaks regressive politics and an authoritarian bent in the rhetoric of individual freedom--but true libertarianism, which focuses on identifying the minimum amount of control the state can reasonably exert over the individual while still being a society as such. Mill puts individual rights foremost as long as they do not harm others or prevent others from being harmed when that individual could prevent it. What makes this distinctly utilitarian is that Mill grounds his arguments in maximizing the social good--an ethos he picked up from his father James Mill, who was also a utilitarian thinker. In other words, this is different from libertarian philosophy that foregrounds the rights of the individual because Mill foregrounds the good of society and argues that respecting individual liberty as much as possible should be done because it's the best thing for society at large.
https://youtu.be/CXa1O1necjw
Essentially, this is a utilitarian approach to libertarianism. Not the version of libertarianism generally espoused by right wingers in the US--which essentially cloaks regressive politics and an authoritarian bent in the rhetoric of individual freedom--but true libertarianism, which focuses on identifying the minimum amount of control the state can reasonably exert over the individual while still being a society as such. Mill puts individual rights foremost as long as they do not harm others or prevent others from being harmed when that individual could prevent it. What makes this distinctly utilitarian is that Mill grounds his arguments in maximizing the social good--an ethos he picked up from his father James Mill, who was also a utilitarian thinker. In other words, this is different from libertarian philosophy that foregrounds the rights of the individual because Mill foregrounds the good of society and argues that respecting individual liberty as much as possible should be done because it's the best thing for society at large.
https://youtu.be/CXa1O1necjw
December 3, 2019
It's certainly a must read, even if the writing style isn't the best at times. Of course any liberal democracy has already integrated these ideas and hence one finds them now natural but considering the time Mill lived in, it gives a good understanding of how we got here.
I found On Liberty the most satisfying essay of the four. It is very well argued and the thought process more clear. Utilitarianism is at times more arguable than others. Representative government has some interesting anecdotes that makes it probably more interesting to read than others. Subjection of women is overall well argued even if the writing style is a bit dull at times.
I found On Liberty the most satisfying essay of the four. It is very well argued and the thought process more clear. Utilitarianism is at times more arguable than others. Representative government has some interesting anecdotes that makes it probably more interesting to read than others. Subjection of women is overall well argued even if the writing style is a bit dull at times.
February 9, 2021
Really really enjoyed the 'On Liberty' chapter!! Not as much of a fan of the other 3, but still overall a really good collection of essays :)
Read
August 16, 2020Dedication
To Wollstonecraft
Introduction
“His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”
“I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded into the permanent interests of man as a progressive being”
“This, then, is the appropriate region of human liberty. It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience, ... The liberty of expressing and publishing opinions ... liberty of thought itself ... Secondly, the principle requires liberty of tastes and pursuits; ... Thirdly, from this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals; freedom to unite ... No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free, whatever may be its form of government; and none is completely free in which they do not exist absolute and unqualified. The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual.”
Part II
“..the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as a Greta benefit l, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collusion with error. ... To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same things as absolute certainty”** ... “There is no such thing as absolute certainty, but there is assurance sufficient for the purposes of human life. We may, and must, assume our opinion to be true for the guidance of our own conduct” ... “Wrong opinions and practices gradually yield to fact and argument: but facts and arguments, to produce any affect on the mind, must be brought before it. ... In the case of any person whose judgement is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so? Because he has kept his mind open to criticism of his opinions and conduct. Because it has been his practice to listen ... The steady habit of correcting and completing his own opinion by collating it with those of others, so far from causing doubt and hesitation in carrying it into practice, is the only stable foundation for a just reliance on it: for, being cognizant of all that can, at least obviously, be said against him, and having taken up his position against all gainsayers —knowing that he has sought for objections and difficulties, instead of avoiding them, and has shut out no light which can be thrown upon the subject from any quarter— he has a right to think his judgement better than that of any person, or any multitude, who have not gone through a similar process”
“However unwillingly a person who has a strong opinion may admit their possibility that his opinion may be false, he ought to be moved by the consideration that however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth.”***
Part III
“Acts, of whatever kind, which, without justifiable cause, do harm to others, may be, and in the more important cases absolutely require to be, controlled by the unfavorable sentiments, and, when needful, by the active interference of mankind. The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people” - yelling fire in a crowded theatre concept
“In proportion to the development of his individuality, each person becomes more valuable to himself, and is therefore capable of being more valuable to others.”
“Persons of genius, it is true, are, and are always likely to be, a small minority; but in order to have them, it is necessary to preserve the soil in which they grow. Genius can only breathe freely in an Astro sphere of freedom. Person of genius are, ex vi termini, more individual than any other people — less capable, consequently, of fitting themselves, without hurtful compression, into any of the small number of mounds which society provides in order to save its members the trouble of forming their own character. If from from timidity they consent to be forced...society will be little better for their genius. If they are of strong character, and break their fetters, they become a mark...’Wild’, ‘erratic’, and the like...I insist this emphatically on the importance of genius, and the necessity of allowing it to unfold itself freely both in thought and in practice”
Part IV
“No person is an entirely isolated being”
Part V
“Trade is a social act”
“On the other hand, there are questions relating to interference with trade, which are essentially questions of liberty...that of the sale of poisons...such a precaution, for example, as that if labeling the drug with some word expressive if it’s dangerous character, may be enforced without violation of liberty: the buyer cannot wish not to know that the thing he possesses has poisonous qualities.”
“So, again, idleness, except in a person receiving support form the public, or except when it constitutes - breach of contract, cannot without tyranny be made a subject of legal punishment; but if, either from idleness or from any other avoidable cause, a man fails to perform his legal duties to others, as for instance to support his children, it is no tyranny to force him to fulfill that obligation, by compulsory labor, if not other means are available”
“Whatever it is permitted to do, it must be permitted to advice to do.”
“An education establishes and controlled by the State should only exist, if it exist at all, as one among many competing experiments, carried on for the purpose of example and stimulus, to keep the others up to a certain standard of excellence”
To Wollstonecraft
Introduction
“His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”
“I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded into the permanent interests of man as a progressive being”
“This, then, is the appropriate region of human liberty. It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience, ... The liberty of expressing and publishing opinions ... liberty of thought itself ... Secondly, the principle requires liberty of tastes and pursuits; ... Thirdly, from this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals; freedom to unite ... No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free, whatever may be its form of government; and none is completely free in which they do not exist absolute and unqualified. The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual.”
Part II
“..the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as a Greta benefit l, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collusion with error. ... To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same things as absolute certainty”** ... “There is no such thing as absolute certainty, but there is assurance sufficient for the purposes of human life. We may, and must, assume our opinion to be true for the guidance of our own conduct” ... “Wrong opinions and practices gradually yield to fact and argument: but facts and arguments, to produce any affect on the mind, must be brought before it. ... In the case of any person whose judgement is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so? Because he has kept his mind open to criticism of his opinions and conduct. Because it has been his practice to listen ... The steady habit of correcting and completing his own opinion by collating it with those of others, so far from causing doubt and hesitation in carrying it into practice, is the only stable foundation for a just reliance on it: for, being cognizant of all that can, at least obviously, be said against him, and having taken up his position against all gainsayers —knowing that he has sought for objections and difficulties, instead of avoiding them, and has shut out no light which can be thrown upon the subject from any quarter— he has a right to think his judgement better than that of any person, or any multitude, who have not gone through a similar process”
“However unwillingly a person who has a strong opinion may admit their possibility that his opinion may be false, he ought to be moved by the consideration that however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth.”***
Part III
“Acts, of whatever kind, which, without justifiable cause, do harm to others, may be, and in the more important cases absolutely require to be, controlled by the unfavorable sentiments, and, when needful, by the active interference of mankind. The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people” - yelling fire in a crowded theatre concept
“In proportion to the development of his individuality, each person becomes more valuable to himself, and is therefore capable of being more valuable to others.”
“Persons of genius, it is true, are, and are always likely to be, a small minority; but in order to have them, it is necessary to preserve the soil in which they grow. Genius can only breathe freely in an Astro sphere of freedom. Person of genius are, ex vi termini, more individual than any other people — less capable, consequently, of fitting themselves, without hurtful compression, into any of the small number of mounds which society provides in order to save its members the trouble of forming their own character. If from from timidity they consent to be forced...society will be little better for their genius. If they are of strong character, and break their fetters, they become a mark...’Wild’, ‘erratic’, and the like...I insist this emphatically on the importance of genius, and the necessity of allowing it to unfold itself freely both in thought and in practice”
Part IV
“No person is an entirely isolated being”
Part V
“Trade is a social act”
“On the other hand, there are questions relating to interference with trade, which are essentially questions of liberty...that of the sale of poisons...such a precaution, for example, as that if labeling the drug with some word expressive if it’s dangerous character, may be enforced without violation of liberty: the buyer cannot wish not to know that the thing he possesses has poisonous qualities.”
“So, again, idleness, except in a person receiving support form the public, or except when it constitutes - breach of contract, cannot without tyranny be made a subject of legal punishment; but if, either from idleness or from any other avoidable cause, a man fails to perform his legal duties to others, as for instance to support his children, it is no tyranny to force him to fulfill that obligation, by compulsory labor, if not other means are available”
“Whatever it is permitted to do, it must be permitted to advice to do.”
“An education establishes and controlled by the State should only exist, if it exist at all, as one among many competing experiments, carried on for the purpose of example and stimulus, to keep the others up to a certain standard of excellence”
July 26, 2022
An excellent collection, well structured with an informative introduction and numerous useful explanatory notes, as well as a short biography / chronology of Mill's life.
June 6, 2020
I mainly wanted to read "Utilitarianism" as I think out of all of Mill's work, it's his best, but ended up reading all four essays. Personally, I have come dislike Mill. Not for his views, but for his overly long winded writing. In many cases, it seemed like he had become so caught up in going into every minute detail he could think of, that the main point of the chapter was absolutely lost.
As for content, a lot of what is present in these four essays is very good, but then there is a lot that is severely outdated both in terms of the idea he is presenting or the way he goes about it. There is certainly a fair bit of British exceptionalism that he puts forth, though Western exceptionalism might be more apt, and he spends a good amount of time justifying imperialism. While he was certainly progressive in terms of his views on women's rights, some of his other ideas sound backwards in comparison. His remarks on Ireland are inaccurate, and dismissive of the actual causes of Ireland's problems in the 19th Century, and his remarks regarding India and China are a little rough as well.
In short, while these essays do have merit and are interesting to read, it can be a chore to read them. Further, there is nothing progressive to be found by today's standards, and while his arguments in favor of women's rights were progressive by 19th Century standards, they fall a little short of the mark in regards to how we think of equality, and what that means, today. I would highly recommend reading "Utilitarianism" as it is very interesting and probably the best essay in this collection, and a very interesting moral system to consider.
As for content, a lot of what is present in these four essays is very good, but then there is a lot that is severely outdated both in terms of the idea he is presenting or the way he goes about it. There is certainly a fair bit of British exceptionalism that he puts forth, though Western exceptionalism might be more apt, and he spends a good amount of time justifying imperialism. While he was certainly progressive in terms of his views on women's rights, some of his other ideas sound backwards in comparison. His remarks on Ireland are inaccurate, and dismissive of the actual causes of Ireland's problems in the 19th Century, and his remarks regarding India and China are a little rough as well.
In short, while these essays do have merit and are interesting to read, it can be a chore to read them. Further, there is nothing progressive to be found by today's standards, and while his arguments in favor of women's rights were progressive by 19th Century standards, they fall a little short of the mark in regards to how we think of equality, and what that means, today. I would highly recommend reading "Utilitarianism" as it is very interesting and probably the best essay in this collection, and a very interesting moral system to consider.
April 25, 2023
"…the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. 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. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. …Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. …I forgo any advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right, as a thing independent of utility. I regard utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interest of man as a progressive being."
"While I dispute the pretentions of any theory which sets up an imaginary standard of justice not grounded on utility, I account the justice which is grounded on utility to be the chief part, and incomparably the most sacred and binding part, of all morality."
"The first element of good government, therefore, being the virtue and intelligence of the human beings composing the community, the most important point of excellence which any form of government can possess is to promote the virtue and intelligence of the people themselves."
"... the rights and interests of every or any person are only secure from being disregarded, when the person interested is himself able, and habitually disposed, to stand up for them. ... the general prosperity attains a greater height, and is more widely diffused, in proportion to the amount and variety of the personal energies enlisted in promoting it."
"There ought always to be such a balance preserved among personal interests, as may render any one of them dependent for its successes, on carrying with it at least a large proportion of those who act on higher motives, and more comprehensive and distant views."
"While I dispute the pretentions of any theory which sets up an imaginary standard of justice not grounded on utility, I account the justice which is grounded on utility to be the chief part, and incomparably the most sacred and binding part, of all morality."
"The first element of good government, therefore, being the virtue and intelligence of the human beings composing the community, the most important point of excellence which any form of government can possess is to promote the virtue and intelligence of the people themselves."
"... the rights and interests of every or any person are only secure from being disregarded, when the person interested is himself able, and habitually disposed, to stand up for them. ... the general prosperity attains a greater height, and is more widely diffused, in proportion to the amount and variety of the personal energies enlisted in promoting it."
"There ought always to be such a balance preserved among personal interests, as may render any one of them dependent for its successes, on carrying with it at least a large proportion of those who act on higher motives, and more comprehensive and distant views."
December 13, 2020
The book has an essay form. The author is asking the reader questions. I’m not judging the concepts as itself, but the book was to be very complicated, detailed and therefore uninteresting. Maybe because i agree which mich and do not really need so many lines to be convinced of author’s point (it could be summarized in couple of bullet points and i would understand better. Otherwise i could spend a year of everyday work analyzing line by line..
It is though nice to learn about the previous debates from times when for example many people still believed that woman are not as capable as man. The part on representative government was much understandable than the Liberty and Utilitarianism, but even there concept m m s like secret voting didn’t need too much space..
If you want to read the book, make sure you have time and patience, than you will be rewarded with many great ideas and better understanding why Liberty is better etc.. (not like anyone dangerously attacks the idea of Liberty these days (reality is other things, but pretty much everyone agrees on the concept), but many do not understand anymore why are these ideas superior..)
It is though nice to learn about the previous debates from times when for example many people still believed that woman are not as capable as man. The part on representative government was much understandable than the Liberty and Utilitarianism, but even there concept m m s like secret voting didn’t need too much space..
If you want to read the book, make sure you have time and patience, than you will be rewarded with many great ideas and better understanding why Liberty is better etc.. (not like anyone dangerously attacks the idea of Liberty these days (reality is other things, but pretty much everyone agrees on the concept), but many do not understand anymore why are these ideas superior..)
January 18, 2020
Very good little collection of essays. On liberty is a classic and a must read but I assume everybody and their grandmother have heard about it. His defence of utilitarianism is a bit odd, he sometimes professes to be for rule following in the same paragraphs, which makes me think he is actually more of a rule utilitarian. The considerations on government are the most boring part, I would skip them. Finally his arguments for giving legal equality to women are quite compelling and clear, probably the second most important part of the book after On liberty.
Read
June 11, 2022Really enjoyed each of the essays. Mill shines like a pragmatic light in the abstract darkness of 19th century political theory and philosophy, though he is at times very held back by the knowledge of what was possible in his era. On Liberty and Utilitarianism lay out philosophies that any representative government should strive for, and The Subjection of Women is light years ahead of its time in a way that was completely shocking to read.
November 7, 2022
"All that has been done in the modern world to relax the chain on the minds of women, has been a mistake. they never should have been allowed to receive literary education. women who read, much more women who write, are, in the existing constitutions of things, a contradiction and a disturbing element: and it was wrong to bring women up with any acquirements but those of domestic servant"
Read
October 25, 2024Sorry but he would not have written most of On Liberty if he had lived in the 2020s and had to experience driving with scooters and doordash e-bikes on the road and everyone with their blue tooth speakers at the beach and at the bus stop outside his window at 3am on a monday
February 4, 2025
An excellent edition of an important work of modern philosophy. (This review doesn’t allow enough space for me to expound on how much I hate said philosophy, but that isn’t relevant to the necessity of reading this work to make sense of modernity.)
Read
August 18, 2020Utilitarianism
Want to read
September 18, 2020Reading Process:
Sept. 18 2020: On Liberty --> Ironically, my one thought when I finished it was "I'M FREEEE"
Sept. 18 2020: On Liberty --> Ironically, my one thought when I finished it was "I'M FREEEE"
November 24, 2020
Whilst an incredibly dense writing style, John Stuart Mills produces some of the most coherent and relatable arguments for modern political philosophy that have ever been conceived.
October 24, 2023
Strong annotated collection of important essays by J. S. Mill
July 8, 2025
On Liberty was super interesting and kind of a banger tbh. The rest of the essays were very hit or miss (the one on representative government was sooooo boring and wrong)
October 2, 2025
bro is a liberal. also shoutout my professor for shouting out harriet taylor. dubs.
December 22, 2020
"On Liberty" essay a fine example of what the US constitution was structured to achieve in spirit and the main thrust of western, liberal democratic thought.
July 31, 2023
respectfully, unnecessary
Read
February 6, 2019Only the 1st two essays
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews