Utilitarian Philosophers-2- John Stuart Mill

• He found the “principle of utility” the keystone of his belief.

• He wrote 8 books out of which important for the purpose are –
• 1. On Liberty (1859)
• 2. Consideration on representative Government (1861)
• 3. Utilitarianism (1865)
• 4. Subjection of Women
Utilitarianism was considered one of the least convincing of Mill’s works. It was written as
an exposition and defence of the pleasure philosophy applied to ethics, but he makes so many
changes that there is little left of the original creed. He discovered that the direct pursuit of
pleasure is futile and that happiness was to be found only by not seeking it.
Mill on Utilitarianism-
• He sees that human nature is not entirely moved by self-interest, as Bentham and his
father have taught, but is capable of self-sacrifice. In the concluding section of his
essay on Utilitarianism, Mill declares that there are “certain social utilities which are
vastly more important, and therefore more absolute and imperative, than any others
are as a class….and which, therefore, ought to be, as well as naturally are, guarded by
a sentiment not only different in degree but also in kind distinguished from the milder
feeling which attaches to the mere idea of promoting human pleasure or convenience,
at once by the more definite nature of its commands, and by the sterner character of
its sanctions”.
Mill’s Essays on Utilitarianism-
• In the beginning of the Essay -Mill accepts the Benthamite conception of utility
without any reservation –” 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. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain by unhappiness,
pain and the privation of pleasure…pleasure and freedom from pain, are the only
thing desirable as ends; and…all desirable things …are desirable either for the
pleasure inherent in themselves or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the
prevention of pain”.
• In spite of this acceptance of Benthamite conception of utility a little later after few
paragraphs it becomes clear that Mill was accepting a modified form of the
Benthamite theory.
• He tried to remove the misconception from the minds of some of the thinkers of his
time that utilitarian conception of happiness did not stand for the individual agent’s
happiness alone, but for all concerned
 • He reiterated his faith in the utilitarian morality as he writes in his famous book “On
Liberty”. “I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions but it must be
utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a
progressive being”.
On Liberty-
• Mill’s ideas on liberty had a direct relationship with his theory of utility or happiness.
Mill regarded liberty as a necessary means for the development of individuality which
was to become the ultimate source of happiness.
• There was only one road for him to take that was the road of higher utility. Mill has
drawn a distinction between higher and lower utility which may better be understood
respectively as conducing to the good of society and the goods of individuals.
• He is keen to promote good of the society and as well as of the individuals.
• But the ultimate basis on which he erects his grand edifice of liberty is his
consideration of social goods, conceding of course, that individual has also not been
lost sight.
• His essay’ On Liberty’ occupies a very important place in the history of political
thought. Never before a finer defence of 1) Liberty of thought and 2) liberty of
discussion has ever been written.
• He believed that it is man’s mind that changes society and that only free discussion
can nourish fruitful ideas. In his essay “On Liberty” he writes, “All mankind minus
one lacks the right to coerce single coerce the single dissentient”.
• For if it supresses his opinion, it injures the human race. The opinion supressed may
be true and “if not suppressed for ever, it may be thrown back for centuries”.
• It may be partly true, in which case it is necessary corrective to the accepted body of
truth. It may be false, but controversy will strengthen true conviction. A creed
accepted because of authority is a “mummery stuffed and dead”.
• There is no slumber like that of a deep-seated opinion and can be to the advantage of
mankind to disturb it. Then they will acquire “the clearer perception and livelier
impression of truth, produced by its collision with error”.
• It will be seen that Mill is a firm believer in the survival of the fittest in the world of
idea, and that he is convinced that truth is fittest to survive. But even if men will not
accept the inherently truthful. Mill believes that authority cannot help.
• Call Caesar to save Christ and he at once destroys him. Mankind can hardly be too
often reminded that there was once a man named Socrates between whom and the
legal authorities and public opinion of his time there took place a memorable
collision.
• Mill had no doubt of the utility of absolute liberty of thought and expression. He does
not recognise any limitation of any kind whatsoever on the right of free discussion of
individuals.
 • “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”.
• This advocacy of Mill does not hold good in modern period because no society,
howsoever democratically constituted it might be, may guarantee such as absolute and
unqualified right. To every right a corresponding duty has been attached.
• Not only Mill advocated freedom of thought and discussion but he was also
concerned with the development of individuality of men and women in the
community. He was convinced that all wise and noble things come and must come
from individuals.
• To Mill there can be no self-development without liberty.
• This liberty which he talks about is the liberty of action. This liberty of action has
been divided into two parts- 1. self-regarding actions; 2. other-regarding actions. State
should not interfere with the self- regarding actions. “In the part which merely
concerns himself, his independence is of right, absolute”.
• Mill explains that the rationale of his individualism is strictly utilitarian. He writes
that-
“It is proper to state that I forego any advantage which could be derived to my argument from
the idea of abstract right, as a thing independent of utility. I regard utility as the ultimate
appeal on all ethical questions, but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the
permanent interests of man as a progressive being”.
• But Mill justifies state intervention with those other regarding actions which produce
positive demonstrable harm to others.
• “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”.
• It is legitimate to oblige a man to bear his share in maintaining society- conscription is
not to be regarded as an unwarranted infringement of his liberty.
• He would not admit for instance that the police power of the state should be used to
punish a person for gambling, drunkenness or sexual immorality or to abridge his
access to these evils, but he felt obliged to concede that it might be justly used to
combat the social consequence of such acts.
• It is, therefore, clear from this discussion that interference for well-being of society
can go to any extent.
• But if Mill justified restricted interference not because that he is a great democrat, but
because of his inbred distrust of authority, and specially of democratically controlled
authority.
• Mill’s contention was that individual in democracy was swamped in the general.
Democracy prevented him from developing his individuality.
• From the arguments of Mill and his definition of liberty it becomes clear that he is a
reluctant democrat and all the more a champion of empty liberty.
• Defining liberty at one place he says- “Liberty consists in doing what one desires”.
You would be justified, Mill says “in preventing a man crossing a bridge that you
know to be unsafe”. “Liberty consists in doing what one desires, and he does not
desire to fall into the river”.
• The man desired to cross the bridge, but it is legitimate to frustrate this desire so that
the greater desire which can be imputed to him, of not falling in the river can be
achieved.
• This definition of liberty throws door open to any amount of interference on the part
of the state.
• Mill has gone far towards admitting the extreme idealist contention that one can
forced to be free.