密尔论自由

by John Gray, 约翰·格雷, 樊凡 (Translator)

近些年来，对于约翰·斯图亚特·密尔《论自由》的诸多阐释和批判都集中在关于密尔学术成就的传统和修正学派之间的对话上。在传统学派看来，虽然约翰·斯图亚特·密尔已经认识到古典功利主义的局限性，但是，他却不能完全从他的父亲和边沁的影响中解放出来，结果使得他成为一个前后不一致的且仅仅是一个折中的思想家，在他的著作中并没有一种连贯的学说。在修正学派那里，他们则试图通过对密尔自由概念中诸种模糊和困难?解决，来论证密尔的著作实际上包含着一个前后一致的统一理论。这本论文集所收集的各篇文章正是对传统学派和修正学派的解释所做研究的结果。

Genres: Philosophy

166 pages, Paperback

First published July 11, 1991

About the author

John Nicholas Gray is a English political philosopher with interests in analytic philosophy and the history of ideas. He retired in 2008 as School Professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Gray contributes regularly to The Guardian, The Times Literary Supplement and the New Statesman, where he is the lead book reviewer.

Reviews

[Jim Cook · Rating 4 out of 5]

JS Mill’s On Liberty (1859) is a foundational text in the approach to moral and political thinking called “classical liberalism”. The editors Gray and Smith include contributions from a number of important scholars in the liberal tradition of thought. One of them, Isaiah Berlin calls Mill’s essay “the clearest, most candid, persuasive, and moving exposition of the point of view of those who desire an open and tolerant society.”

And I would agree but would also ask: at what cost?

Mill’s influence on us has been profoundly ambiguous, if not violent. For example, Mill contends liberty is good for Western Europeans, but for its colonies and for Africa and Asia “despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end.” It was this mindset that provided the rationale for the forcible removal of native children to residential schools across Canada. By the time it was discovered to not be “efficacious” it was too late to prevent profound inter-generational damage.

Ironically, in the same essay Mill argues that (white, male) Mormons in far-away Utah should not face legal sanctions for practicing polygamy, something he also claimed was “barbarous.”

Mill also contends that free market forces are normally sufficient to ensure products are unadulterated, safe, and produced under conditions that don’t harm workers. Consequently, government restrictions on the sale of poisons or other dangerous substances are unnecessary. Indeed, he even goes so far as to complain about the government restricting the sale of opium to people in China because it limited their freedom as buyers!

Nor can he decide whether it should be unlawful for pimps tp prostitute young women. He also argues for a means test before marriage to prevent poor people from reproducing.

Unfortunately, all this nonsensical jumble of ideas still informs modern-day conservative ideas in politics.

Today, the primary redeeming element of Mill’s essay is the second chapter on the liberty of thought and discussion. His ideas in this part of the work have permanent value in my view and should be read by everyone who posts on social media.