What do you think?
Rate this book
Utilitarianism and On Liberty: Including Mill's 'Essay on Bentham' and Selections from the Writings of Jeremy Bentham and John Austin
Including three of his most famous and important essays, Utilitarianism , On Liberty , and Essay on Bentham , along with formative selections from Jeremy Bentham and John Austin, this volume provides a uniquely perspicuous view of Mill's ethical and political thought.
272 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1863
9 people are currently reading
180 people want to read
About the author
John Stuart Mill
1,982 books1,933 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 - 6 of 6 reviews
November 8, 2021
John Stuart Mill is one of the most likeable of philosophers. Many European philosophers, despite their pretentions to wisdom and objective analysis, are essentially defenders of the existing regime to which they belong.
They are well-to-do men who have the time and leisure for philosophy, and who wish to use it to prove that monarchy, aristocracy and their religion are the correct institutions, coincidentally proving that their own position in society is the only valid one.
By contrast, Mill is public-spirited, and is considering what might be the best form of governance for all. Some of his conclusions may be conservative, and he may be an uncritical admirer of the Christian faith in which he was raised. Accusations of racism have been raised against him, though he is no worse than any other Victorian in that respect. Nonetheless there is a genuine wish on his part to find a system that benefits everyone.
This particular volume mostly concerns Mill’s works, but it is topped and tailed by the works of other Utilitarians, so I will briefly mention them. There is an interesting opening essay by Jeremy Bentham, which outlines the basic principles of the movement.
Then an essay by Mill follows, which seeks to debunk Bentham. I am reminded of Saki’s observation: ‘Never be a pioneer. It’s the early Christian that gets the fattest lion.” As one of the movement’s originators, Bentham is more open to criticism by those who develop it. Even when Mill says that he has finished criticising Bentham and can now move onto the good parts of his predecessor’s work, it is not long before Mill is back to fault-finding.
By way of comic relief, the volume ends with a short work by John Austin. Austin uses Utilitarianism to defend the establishment – theft of any kind is wrong, even by poor people. Rebellion against government is usually wrong and the ideals of the French Revolution are hooey.
The more absurd parts are Austin’s constant references to god and the unrevealed truths that Utilitarianism is supposed to plug. Ah, if only god had bothered to reveal the truth of how he wanted us to live, things would have been simpler. Still Austin is supposedly a greater influence on Mill than Bentham, so we should respect some serious thought here.
Much of the book comprises Mill’s two works, On Liberty, and Utilitarianism. Mill’s views will have something to satisfy liberals and libertarians, and something to frustrate both. He is a firm believer in the value of government, but also feels it should stay out of people’s private lives as much as it can, provided they are not harming anyone else. At least Mill is having the discussion about the appropriate spheres of influence for government, even if he is not always quite right, in some people’s opinions.
Mill identifies the dismaying problem of repressing opinions not one’s own. As Mill says, all views should be considered of interest, however wrong. They serve to challenge our established opinions, keeping those fresh. They also serve to highlight the weaknesses in received beliefs. Even an alternative belief that is wrong may highlight some truth that is missing in the mainstream beliefs.
Alas, I think government is beginning to ossify in my time because of the intolerance of all but a narrow range of opinions, stretching from centre-right to right-wing beliefs. Anything beyond that is badly suppressed. It does not last for long in the political sphere, and is choked by the press.
There was a time when a wide range of views from socialism to fascism were allowed to be expressed, After the horrors of the last century, it is easy to see why such views are no longer allowed free expression, but we suffer from the loss of them.
When Mill defends the freedom of the press, did he imagine a situation like today where the so-called freedom of the press is stifling political discussion? This may seem like a paradox or an absurdity, but I sincerely believe it.
What we currently have is not true freedom of the press, but the freedom of powerful businessmen to control the press, and ensure that only their biases are fed to the public. This steers public opinion away from any innovative or original thinking, and favours only politicians who are corrupt careerists with little principle, since any sincere wish to improve society would fall foul of the press.
A truly free press would be one where newspaper proprietors allow a broad church of opinions to be expressed in their pages, not just those that conform to a small range of the political spectrum that is not too far removed from the biases of the owner, which will always be conservative because the owner is wealthy.
This has done much to poison the current level of intellectual thinking in the country. Radical thinkers are given no voice. Mediocrity dominates government, as Mill feared it would, since only politicians with no original thoughts of their own will thrive. It is hardly surprising that some of the general public are drawn towards extreme parties.
Still what are we to make of the opinions of Fascists and Communists being allowed free flow? Mill supported all beliefs being respected and allowed to speak out, but he lived in a time when extremism of the present kind did not exist.
We know that Fascists and Communists can take over the reins of government, and then suppress the very free speech and free elections that put them in power. Should we allow them the free speech that Mill thought we should? Would Mill think so if he lived today?
The last question is one on which I can only speculate. There is an argument for allowing free speech to extremists, provided that it is not used to incite violence against others. The danger of a Fascist government could be better addressed if political parties learned the lessons that an increase in popularity in far-right groups teaches us.
Unfortunately politicians from their mediocre centre-right consensus have a bad habit of learning the wrong lessons. Far-right groups focus their hatred on immigrants, and gain support this way. So governments respond by introducing new laws designed to humiliate immigrants and deter immigration.
This picking on minorities is something Mill would deplore, and it is not even effective, since the real problem is not immigration. Immigrants are not evil agents seeking to invade a country where they can get the best benefits, take our jobs, and steal our best housing. When the immigrants leave, as is happening in post-Brexit Britain, we find that there is only a shortage of labour, and nobody is financially better off.
In any case, you cannot outdo the Fascists by picking on immigrants, because Fascists will only demand even stricter laws, or laws against people born in this country but who are part of minority ethnic groups. To beat the Fascists at their own game, you have to become a Fascist.
However even people who are hostile to immigration may feel differently if you go too far. They do not want to see their neighbours rounded up and sent to detention camps. As the Windrush scandal showed, even narrow-minded people were upset when long-standing residents were being deported.
If there is a ‘truth’ to be learned in the rising popularity of far-right groups it is not that immigration or the EU are bad. It is that people are worried about jobs, incomes and housing, and duped into thinking that immigration is the problem. An enlightened and intelligent government would be addressing this problem instead, but we have slipped into the decaying world of principles that are accepted and never challenged, which Mill warned against.
The second work is Utilitarianism. It is worth correcting misapprehensions about what this is. People reading Hard Times or other books might imagine a cold and unfeeling philosophy that reduces everything to utility, and has no place for imagination, art or pleasure.
Far from it. Utilitarianism is about finding ways to ensure that pleasure is increased and pain decreased in society. Hence the arts would be seen as very Utilitarian because they make life better for people.
Mill’s challenge is to find a way to establish the balances whereby the state can find laws that increase the happiness of the nation as a whole without compromising on individual liberties. Where do we draw the line at curtailing a person’s right to pursue what is good for them if that pursuit may harm others?
There is also time for Mill to express support for women’s rights, and for respecting the freedom of children under such an arrangement, but these arguments are only briefly touched on.
There may be limitations to Mill’s vision, but his philosophical ideals are a noble attempt to begin the work on finding a way to improve society, and we might be in a better place if our leaders returned to some of his basic principles.
They are well-to-do men who have the time and leisure for philosophy, and who wish to use it to prove that monarchy, aristocracy and their religion are the correct institutions, coincidentally proving that their own position in society is the only valid one.
By contrast, Mill is public-spirited, and is considering what might be the best form of governance for all. Some of his conclusions may be conservative, and he may be an uncritical admirer of the Christian faith in which he was raised. Accusations of racism have been raised against him, though he is no worse than any other Victorian in that respect. Nonetheless there is a genuine wish on his part to find a system that benefits everyone.
This particular volume mostly concerns Mill’s works, but it is topped and tailed by the works of other Utilitarians, so I will briefly mention them. There is an interesting opening essay by Jeremy Bentham, which outlines the basic principles of the movement.
Then an essay by Mill follows, which seeks to debunk Bentham. I am reminded of Saki’s observation: ‘Never be a pioneer. It’s the early Christian that gets the fattest lion.” As one of the movement’s originators, Bentham is more open to criticism by those who develop it. Even when Mill says that he has finished criticising Bentham and can now move onto the good parts of his predecessor’s work, it is not long before Mill is back to fault-finding.
By way of comic relief, the volume ends with a short work by John Austin. Austin uses Utilitarianism to defend the establishment – theft of any kind is wrong, even by poor people. Rebellion against government is usually wrong and the ideals of the French Revolution are hooey.
The more absurd parts are Austin’s constant references to god and the unrevealed truths that Utilitarianism is supposed to plug. Ah, if only god had bothered to reveal the truth of how he wanted us to live, things would have been simpler. Still Austin is supposedly a greater influence on Mill than Bentham, so we should respect some serious thought here.
Much of the book comprises Mill’s two works, On Liberty, and Utilitarianism. Mill’s views will have something to satisfy liberals and libertarians, and something to frustrate both. He is a firm believer in the value of government, but also feels it should stay out of people’s private lives as much as it can, provided they are not harming anyone else. At least Mill is having the discussion about the appropriate spheres of influence for government, even if he is not always quite right, in some people’s opinions.
Mill identifies the dismaying problem of repressing opinions not one’s own. As Mill says, all views should be considered of interest, however wrong. They serve to challenge our established opinions, keeping those fresh. They also serve to highlight the weaknesses in received beliefs. Even an alternative belief that is wrong may highlight some truth that is missing in the mainstream beliefs.
Alas, I think government is beginning to ossify in my time because of the intolerance of all but a narrow range of opinions, stretching from centre-right to right-wing beliefs. Anything beyond that is badly suppressed. It does not last for long in the political sphere, and is choked by the press.
There was a time when a wide range of views from socialism to fascism were allowed to be expressed, After the horrors of the last century, it is easy to see why such views are no longer allowed free expression, but we suffer from the loss of them.
When Mill defends the freedom of the press, did he imagine a situation like today where the so-called freedom of the press is stifling political discussion? This may seem like a paradox or an absurdity, but I sincerely believe it.
What we currently have is not true freedom of the press, but the freedom of powerful businessmen to control the press, and ensure that only their biases are fed to the public. This steers public opinion away from any innovative or original thinking, and favours only politicians who are corrupt careerists with little principle, since any sincere wish to improve society would fall foul of the press.
A truly free press would be one where newspaper proprietors allow a broad church of opinions to be expressed in their pages, not just those that conform to a small range of the political spectrum that is not too far removed from the biases of the owner, which will always be conservative because the owner is wealthy.
This has done much to poison the current level of intellectual thinking in the country. Radical thinkers are given no voice. Mediocrity dominates government, as Mill feared it would, since only politicians with no original thoughts of their own will thrive. It is hardly surprising that some of the general public are drawn towards extreme parties.
Still what are we to make of the opinions of Fascists and Communists being allowed free flow? Mill supported all beliefs being respected and allowed to speak out, but he lived in a time when extremism of the present kind did not exist.
We know that Fascists and Communists can take over the reins of government, and then suppress the very free speech and free elections that put them in power. Should we allow them the free speech that Mill thought we should? Would Mill think so if he lived today?
The last question is one on which I can only speculate. There is an argument for allowing free speech to extremists, provided that it is not used to incite violence against others. The danger of a Fascist government could be better addressed if political parties learned the lessons that an increase in popularity in far-right groups teaches us.
Unfortunately politicians from their mediocre centre-right consensus have a bad habit of learning the wrong lessons. Far-right groups focus their hatred on immigrants, and gain support this way. So governments respond by introducing new laws designed to humiliate immigrants and deter immigration.
This picking on minorities is something Mill would deplore, and it is not even effective, since the real problem is not immigration. Immigrants are not evil agents seeking to invade a country where they can get the best benefits, take our jobs, and steal our best housing. When the immigrants leave, as is happening in post-Brexit Britain, we find that there is only a shortage of labour, and nobody is financially better off.
In any case, you cannot outdo the Fascists by picking on immigrants, because Fascists will only demand even stricter laws, or laws against people born in this country but who are part of minority ethnic groups. To beat the Fascists at their own game, you have to become a Fascist.
However even people who are hostile to immigration may feel differently if you go too far. They do not want to see their neighbours rounded up and sent to detention camps. As the Windrush scandal showed, even narrow-minded people were upset when long-standing residents were being deported.
If there is a ‘truth’ to be learned in the rising popularity of far-right groups it is not that immigration or the EU are bad. It is that people are worried about jobs, incomes and housing, and duped into thinking that immigration is the problem. An enlightened and intelligent government would be addressing this problem instead, but we have slipped into the decaying world of principles that are accepted and never challenged, which Mill warned against.
The second work is Utilitarianism. It is worth correcting misapprehensions about what this is. People reading Hard Times or other books might imagine a cold and unfeeling philosophy that reduces everything to utility, and has no place for imagination, art or pleasure.
Far from it. Utilitarianism is about finding ways to ensure that pleasure is increased and pain decreased in society. Hence the arts would be seen as very Utilitarian because they make life better for people.
Mill’s challenge is to find a way to establish the balances whereby the state can find laws that increase the happiness of the nation as a whole without compromising on individual liberties. Where do we draw the line at curtailing a person’s right to pursue what is good for them if that pursuit may harm others?
There is also time for Mill to express support for women’s rights, and for respecting the freedom of children under such an arrangement, but these arguments are only briefly touched on.
There may be limitations to Mill’s vision, but his philosophical ideals are a noble attempt to begin the work on finding a way to improve society, and we might be in a better place if our leaders returned to some of his basic principles.
May 8, 2022
Can't wait for the movie!
May 2, 2015
"Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
I became hooked on JS Mill in college when some of his writings were assigned in a philosophy class. I still keep his books handy when I need a hit.
Mill writes in a florid, orotund style that often defies the rapid reader. One frequently has to plod through an over-punctuated verbal and syntactic thicket twice or thrice in order to extract the meaning of a passage. In this respect, Mill was perhaps no worse than other philosophical writers of his day - or indeed of any day. This is definitely worth persevering with; not only for its exposition of the subject, but also for some wonderful passages of writing. Mill has a gift for simple exposition of complex philosophical questions.
On liberty of thought and expression, Mill has a swipe at the Christian faith. Some believers may be offended by this discussion, but why should they? The truth should be able to withstand the assaults of opposing views - indeed (as Mill says) it should welcome contrary views both as a means of strengthening the truth, and as a means of rooting out error.
Moreover, Mill was writing in the middle of the 19th century, just before the publication of Darwin's theory of evolution, at a time when Christianity in England enjoyed many advantages and official protections. He quotes the example of a man who went to prison for writing an anti-Christian sentiment on a gate - an exemplary message to others who might be tempted to express their true thoughts.
On individuality Mill maintains that liberty of thought and expression must necessarily lead to the desirability of people living as they choose, providing that they do not infringe the liberty or well-being of others. However, the arguments in this chapter are less well-presented than in the former chapter. Mill also makes an assertion that most people would reject today: "No government by a democracy.....ever did, or could, rise above mediocrity."
On the limits to the authority of society over the individual, Mill makes the point that while the individual is sovereign over himself, the society in which he lives and from which he derives protection and other benefits also has rights over the individual. The individual is not accountable to society for his actions if they affect him alone; but as soon as one person's conduct adversely affects the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it.
The wide-ranging implications of this principle are discussed comprehensively and lucidly - with good reason, because the allocation of rights and responsibilities between the individual and society is the most important business of coherent groups of human beings.
I became hooked on JS Mill in college when some of his writings were assigned in a philosophy class. I still keep his books handy when I need a hit.
Mill writes in a florid, orotund style that often defies the rapid reader. One frequently has to plod through an over-punctuated verbal and syntactic thicket twice or thrice in order to extract the meaning of a passage. In this respect, Mill was perhaps no worse than other philosophical writers of his day - or indeed of any day. This is definitely worth persevering with; not only for its exposition of the subject, but also for some wonderful passages of writing. Mill has a gift for simple exposition of complex philosophical questions.
On liberty of thought and expression, Mill has a swipe at the Christian faith. Some believers may be offended by this discussion, but why should they? The truth should be able to withstand the assaults of opposing views - indeed (as Mill says) it should welcome contrary views both as a means of strengthening the truth, and as a means of rooting out error.
Moreover, Mill was writing in the middle of the 19th century, just before the publication of Darwin's theory of evolution, at a time when Christianity in England enjoyed many advantages and official protections. He quotes the example of a man who went to prison for writing an anti-Christian sentiment on a gate - an exemplary message to others who might be tempted to express their true thoughts.
On individuality Mill maintains that liberty of thought and expression must necessarily lead to the desirability of people living as they choose, providing that they do not infringe the liberty or well-being of others. However, the arguments in this chapter are less well-presented than in the former chapter. Mill also makes an assertion that most people would reject today: "No government by a democracy.....ever did, or could, rise above mediocrity."
On the limits to the authority of society over the individual, Mill makes the point that while the individual is sovereign over himself, the society in which he lives and from which he derives protection and other benefits also has rights over the individual. The individual is not accountable to society for his actions if they affect him alone; but as soon as one person's conduct adversely affects the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it.
The wide-ranging implications of this principle are discussed comprehensively and lucidly - with good reason, because the allocation of rights and responsibilities between the individual and society is the most important business of coherent groups of human beings.
June 6, 2012
I loved Mill's writings in this book. I found his discourse on individual liberty profound and inspiring. His discussion of utilitarianism is profound, and I enjoyed the roles played by Mill's explanation of virtue, utility, justice, expediency, and happiness.
Various peers and mentors voiced disapproval for Mill's Greatest Happiness Principle, but after studying Mill's own words on the matter, it is my opinion that the criticisms I heard were misguided by a misunderstanding of the principle.
Mill says, "...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. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure."
The tendency is to assume Mill means that licentiousness or pleasure seeking is acceptable, or even desirable, if the majority agrees. However, Mill points out that: "Human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites, and when once made conscious of them, do not regard anything as happiness which does not include their gratification." A man has divine purpose, and God grants unto men faculties superior to those given to all other animal so that man might achieve his purpose. To seek animal pleasures and chain oneself to lust, man rejects his higher faculties and neglects his purpose. This behavior cannot result in happiness.
Mill explicitly states time and time again that happiness cannot exist without virtue, sound principles, and individual liberty.
It is my intention to discuss further Mill's explanation of these various terms. This, I hope, will solidify my understanding of his philosophy as well as clarify some of the misunderstandings about Utilitarianism.
In the meantime, I invite you to perform an internet search for Mill's essays and read them for yourself - they contribute much to the discussion of individual rights and the proper role of government.
Various peers and mentors voiced disapproval for Mill's Greatest Happiness Principle, but after studying Mill's own words on the matter, it is my opinion that the criticisms I heard were misguided by a misunderstanding of the principle.
Mill says, "...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. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure."
The tendency is to assume Mill means that licentiousness or pleasure seeking is acceptable, or even desirable, if the majority agrees. However, Mill points out that: "Human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites, and when once made conscious of them, do not regard anything as happiness which does not include their gratification." A man has divine purpose, and God grants unto men faculties superior to those given to all other animal so that man might achieve his purpose. To seek animal pleasures and chain oneself to lust, man rejects his higher faculties and neglects his purpose. This behavior cannot result in happiness.
Mill explicitly states time and time again that happiness cannot exist without virtue, sound principles, and individual liberty.
It is my intention to discuss further Mill's explanation of these various terms. This, I hope, will solidify my understanding of his philosophy as well as clarify some of the misunderstandings about Utilitarianism.
In the meantime, I invite you to perform an internet search for Mill's essays and read them for yourself - they contribute much to the discussion of individual rights and the proper role of government.
November 27, 2021
Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory of ethics that suggests that if an action or principle demonstrates its effectiveness for the greater number, this equals the greater moral good. The more people benefit from a principle, the more 'good' that manifested principle inherently is. Pleasure, in most cases, is preferable to pain. Indeed, there will be some cases where this is not true but Mill's argument is in numbers, not in contextual nuances. When the contextual nuances arrive, discussions can be had, but when they don't, Utilitarianism works.
I found it to be interesting how Mill admits the theory's shortcomings, but consequently submits the insignificance of mainstream criticisms. He does this because, he believes, if the theory practically works then regardless of its lack of metaphysical justification (that theists demand and even assert) it remains to be a pragmatic mode of action.
The text itself is dry but throughout there are high and low points that I found to be particularly interesting. I enjoyed his comments on religion and its comparison to secular morality insofar as demonstrating that a theory doesn't require metaphysical justification in order for it to be a feasible concept to embody individually and collectively (such as Kant's CI and Mill's own theory of Utilitarianism).
I enjoyed my edition considering the introduction was informative, analytical, and well-written. It comments on particular points throughout the book and other texts (from Bentham) and replies to common counter-arguments of Utilitarianism. Overall, I enjoyed this dense but intriguing book - It's motivated me to try and learn the intricacies of Utilitarianism on a deeper level, also functioning as a helping argue against theistic claims of a metaphysical moral ethos supplied by their God.
I recommend this if you're interested in moral philosophy and its ties and comparisons to the religious ethos as a substitute.
I found it to be interesting how Mill admits the theory's shortcomings, but consequently submits the insignificance of mainstream criticisms. He does this because, he believes, if the theory practically works then regardless of its lack of metaphysical justification (that theists demand and even assert) it remains to be a pragmatic mode of action.
The text itself is dry but throughout there are high and low points that I found to be particularly interesting. I enjoyed his comments on religion and its comparison to secular morality insofar as demonstrating that a theory doesn't require metaphysical justification in order for it to be a feasible concept to embody individually and collectively (such as Kant's CI and Mill's own theory of Utilitarianism).
I enjoyed my edition considering the introduction was informative, analytical, and well-written. It comments on particular points throughout the book and other texts (from Bentham) and replies to common counter-arguments of Utilitarianism. Overall, I enjoyed this dense but intriguing book - It's motivated me to try and learn the intricacies of Utilitarianism on a deeper level, also functioning as a helping argue against theistic claims of a metaphysical moral ethos supplied by their God.
I recommend this if you're interested in moral philosophy and its ties and comparisons to the religious ethos as a substitute.
Read
November 21, 2009None
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews