Does Mill Successfully reconcile the demands of individual liberty with the demands of general welfare?
Does Mill Successfully reconcile the demands of individual liberty with the demands of general welfare?
When responding to the question: "Does Mill successfully reconcile the demands of the individual liberty and the interests of the general welfare"; it is necessary to examine a number of core issues central to Mills work. Through out the essay we will be looking at concepts such as: individuality, freedom (of speech and action), civil rights, rationality, education...that will enable a clearer understanding of individual liberty and general welfare.
Firstly the essay will introduce the context in which the author lived in, skimming through some of the factors that may have influenced his manner of thought. Secondly it is necessary to analyse and discuss the book that is central to this argument, On Liberty (18 ); emphasising on the liberty of speech and action, education and the role of the State in relation to the individual and society. Thirdly, the central part of the question will be dedicated to the examination of the adjustment between freedom and social well-being. Finally having seen all these concepts and the analysis of Mills theory, it is useful to indicate those aspects of the theory that have been criticised, the contradictions, flaws, as well as those elements that have been relevant towards the construction of the Modern Liberal State.
John Stuart Mill is acclaimed by many, as being one of the most influential intellects of the 19th century. Mills life was far from being ordinary, strongly influenced by his father James Mill and Jeremy Bentham1; he grew up in Victorian England2 in somewhat a humble environment. In his early twenties Mill suffered form a nervous breakdown though later on became a civil servant, a politician and foremost an influential academic. His influences and the environment will be the main factors that will guide Mill towards his ideas on liberty and individuality. He was also sceptical of the church3 and the aristocracy as he believed that they were at the heart of conformity, this will in addition be reflected in his other works, here are the most relevant ones: System of Logic (1843) were he confronts political conservatism with a new method of study; The Principles of Political Economy (1848) a piece that tried to reconcile economics with what people valued; Utilitarism (18 ) his study of the quality and quantity of happiness. The Subjection of Women (1869), which is a defence of feminism.
On Liberty (1859) can be categorized as Mills4 most discussed work. The purpose behind Mill writing it was in the name of human development. As Wilhem Von Humboldt describes it: -The grand leading principle, towards which every leading argument unfolded in these pages directly converges, is the absolute and essential importance of the human development in its richest diversity. (P20 Gray).
On liberty is a critique against the submissive character of society and the development of the tyranny of the State. Mill identifies individuality with development and sees the state as being a mere watchdog for society; since well-developed human beings will in the future help to overcome the situation of underdevelopment and oppression in society.
When touching on the subject of individuality he bases his theory on a series of premises. Firstly he talks about the concept of "self-protection", self-protection meaning that the only valid reason for the interference in another's persons speech or acts would be to prevent the harm of others. Only this way we will be able to protect individuality, as it is through individuality that one becomes more valuable to oneself consequently becoming more valuable towards others. Morality would not be a good enough reason to interfere. When elaborating on this Mill distinguishes two types of actions; those that ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
When touching on the subject of individuality he bases his theory on a series of premises. Firstly he talks about the concept of "self-protection", self-protection meaning that the only valid reason for the interference in another's persons speech or acts would be to prevent the harm of others. Only this way we will be able to protect individuality, as it is through individuality that one becomes more valuable to oneself consequently becoming more valuable towards others. Morality would not be a good enough reason to interfere. When elaborating on this Mill distinguishes two types of actions; those that when pursuing them affect others "other regarding actions", and those that when exercised only affect oneself "self regarding actions". Many authors have criticised Mill for not clearly distinguishing between the self-regarding and the non-self regarding actions. Issaiha Berlin stated, "Mill gives no guidance to what extent freedom can be pursued without the deterrence of others. Though in On Liberty Mill seeks to establish certain criteria to follow. Self-regarding actions would be those that involve absolute liberty of thought, speech, consciousness, pursuits, tastes, and freedom to unite under any purpose that doesn't damage others. The problem occurs when analysing the clarity of self-regarding actions, or those that appear to be self-regarding actions. Taking for example something as apparently harmless as the practise of golf. The regular practice o golf for pleasure can be seen as a "self regarding action", though it seizes to be so when the person practicing the sport starts to neglect other activities involving others (wife, children, friends...) in order to do around on the course. The dilemma lies in that Who should decides when it stops being a self "regarding action" and begins to be an other "regarding act"? Should it be the wife, or his boss? Are they in the correct position to judge5? Mill considers that the way to distinguish that part of life that only concerns the individual and that part that concerns others, will be unveiled through generation after generation of education, as the individual must find the truth for himself, in the end being able to decide what is in the best interest of us each.
This is linked with the idea of freedom of thought, freedom of speech and ultimately the role education. Mill sees human interests as human rights; therefore it is only logical that he strongly advocates freedom of thought as the remedy of the tyranny of the majority over the opinion of the relevant minority. Mill observed three basic reasons for why we should not suppress the opinion held by the minority. Firstly the opinion held by the minority can be true, proving the majority opinion that we previously held as correct to be false. Secondly by suppressing the minorities opinion is to defend the absolute truth, which could result in being a harmful thing to do. Thirdly, he believed that even though if the minorities' opinion was wrong, by suppressing it, we were only depriving the true opinion of its credibility. Mills explanations on the limits of freedom of speech can result somewhat perplexing. Freedom of speech is frequently licked with the idea that Mill holds as the basic protector of liberty: "The only reason for others intervention against ones will, is that of preventing the harm of others"( ) though he also admits that there is a certain price to pay in the name of liberty. Should we not silence any minorities' opinion, even when harming others? I.e.: Mr R. Seldon is a professor at Gold Smiths University London, he is also an open defender of paedophilia. A person that has been subjected to sexual abuse as a child will most likely find the theory of a great offence. The question to be asked is: What is more important, Mr Seldon's right of speech, or the others persons right to not have their sensibility wounded? Though Mill again does mention exceptions, which he illustrates in Chapter III of On Liberty, when he explains that if someone was to have the opinion that corn dealers were the cause of famine or that private property was theft, his opinion should be protected in the name of freedom and individuality. In the moment the opinion was being diffused, inciting society to act against the corn dealers and private property, the opinion would be encroaching on others liberty therefore should be silenced. Acts that are injurious to others should receive a totally different treatment: "Encroachment on their rights; infliction them of any loss or damage, not justified by his own rights; falsehood or duplicity o fin dealing with them; unfair or ungenerous use of advantages over them; even selfish abstinence of defending them against injury- these are fit objects of moral reprobation, and in grave cases moral retribution and punishment" (p93 Gray). This will also be subject of criticism when seeing Mills definition of the States role in society.
Happiness plays a central part in the rights of action, this is where Utilitarism appears. Utilitarism is a theory that amongst other things is based on the presumption that human beings should act in consequence with what will offer them the most happiness. In On Utility happiness is measured in units, therefore for example: a person that would indulge in the activities of onanism and self gratification would acquire less units of happiness than another person that would seek pleasure through altruism as the quality of happiness is greater. If we should identify with the first case Mill believes, that Society is in the position to express its disapproval, this to certain degree can be seen as education of the society over the individual. So in that case, Should individuals be protected of themselves( ) Mills answer is no, not if they are adults. This is where the complexity with education emerges: Who takes care of the children's' education if it is not the adults themselves?
From Mills preoccupation with development, emerges the concern with education, as living in The 19th century England he saw how the tradition and customs in conduct refrained social progress6. Education could be the only way towards development.
The way to achieve this was through the Socratic method; observation would lead to reason and judgement to activity ( ). People could not be left alone to develop there own nature, it was to be the role of the intellectuals and thinkers to educate out of disinterested well doing in order to create a more open and diverse society of well-doing citizens. Being education one of the key factors of social well being, disliking dogma Mill felt that the only way to accomplish a suitable education would be through rational behaviour and vice versa.
As well as rational behaviour men should not repress desires as it is the desire that for a mans character and protects his individuality. The danger that threatens human nature is not the excess but the deficiency of impulses ( p88 Gray ). Mill saw the necessity of impulses in order to rebel, progress and change the establishment. Even though he believed that impulses were not a negative thing he did realise that they needed to be guided by a consciousness. The main dilemma behind Mills theory on education would be that if he realizes that society needs from education, as well as to preserve individuality it is necessary to exercise our impulses. Where are the limits of each other aspect? And if human beings are educated in a similar way (by the elite), Will that not result in some form of indoctrination?
Another factor of relevance is the State, the State and its relation to society, which emerges from the necessity of the individual towards the community. Mill held a pessimistic view of the State; If the mass tyrannises, they are likely to elect a government that will follow this trend"7Meaning that it was not essentially a negative thing to have representatives, but it was when they did not have good level of development; and felt that therefore the coercive power of the public opinion was more important than the tyranny of the State. Mill wish for in a higher degree of self-government by the individual, and though he was a firm believer in democracy, and pushed for democratic reform, Mill had a somewhat elitist view on democracy. "Democracy must combine the wisdom of the few and the responsibility of the many" ( p69 Mill). He felt that the protection of individuality would come through an electoral reform, were the elite would assist the misguided, consequently raising the standards of public life. At the same time Mill was fearful of power of any form, being aware of the dangers of concentrated power, feeling that the power of the elected officials should be limited, for the reason that the elected officials would develop their own interest that would be different from those of the individual. Mill still saw the State as an institution that could protect all opinions; he tries to find the balance between individual rights and the power of the State since freedom alone could not answer the question between society and the individual. "Parliament should aim for the greatest happiness for the greatest number"( p123 Mill and Bentham )
" The State should take care of public good matters; welfare, public order and defence" (p95 Thomas). The private area left up to self interest would be were personal liberty was an area were laws could not touch "Natural Rights" and people had individual sovereignty over there mind and body.
Having seen the characteristic of the freedom of speech and actions, the role of education, the State and its relation with society, it is now necessary to analyse Mills problems in reconciling the individual liberty and the general welfare. A compromise will have to be made when attempting to complement these two fundamentals. In On Liberty Mill tends to emphasise more on the position of individual liberty over the role of the general welfare. "Self protection" being the basic safeguard of liberty, Mill further goes on to explain a series of exceptions (were society or the State should intervene) that do not hold up against the theory. When dealing with general welfare, Mill sees education as one of the main means of attaining it, but fails to elaborate on how it will be implement. To some extent Mill disregards, that when the individual is living in society in some occasions it is the benefit of the general welfare and happiness8 to limt the individual's liberty. Finally, another issue worth mentioning is the one concerning moral rights and rational behaviour.
Some authors9 argue that it was naïve of Mill to confide the well being of society to rational behaviour, as this is not enough, as society needs moral principles to alleviate the gap between individual liberty and general welfare.
In Conclusion, having examined and discussed the main characteristics of "On Liberty" and subsequently seen some of the problems that arise from Mills theory, it cannot be said that Mill manages to successfully reconcile the individual liberty with the welfare of society. Though the contribution that the author makes towards natural rights and the construction of "The Modern Liberal State" is not to be ignored. On Liberty develops a coherent hypothesis that highlights the importance of freedom for the creation of society; this theory should not be looked at as a guide for the construction of civilization, but merely a philosophy of what ideally society should be. Therefore it can be said that Mill manages to successfully cut out the pieces, even though does not manage to fit them together to form a new structure.
Jeremy Bentham: founder of Utilitism, and a central figure in British 19th century legal system.
2 Victorian England suffered from a high degree of conformity in society both formally and informally.
3A strong criticism on Calvinism can be found in chapter III of On liberty.
4 It is necessary to acknowledge hat Mill had a co-author, this was his wife Harriet Taylor.
5 Mill does mention some exceptions when acts are related to close relatives and friends
6 Mill believed, that men were under censorship, and living under unquestionable principles. Though he also admitted, that the constant revision of principles was a difficult talsk
7 Even though Mill is not referring directly to the State, but to the government, we understand that the government is the institution that manages the State affairs
8 This is another problem that arises with the compatibility of the theory of Utility and the theory of liberty. In On Utility there is a certain justification for the limitation of liberty in order to pursuit happiness
9 The strongest critiques were from within the liberal movement: Bagehot, Goldwin Smith, and JF Stephen...
