The Basic Writings of John Stuart Mill: On Liberty, the Subjection of Women and Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill

I read this book for a graduate class in Philosophy. Dr. Dale Miller who was the editor for this book was my professor. He is excellent and an expert on J. S. Mill. Recommended reading for anyone interested in philosophy, political science, and history.

John Stuart Mill, 1806-73, worked for the East India Co. helped run Colonial India from England. Minister of Parliament 1865-68 he served one term. Maiden speech was a disaster his second was great success. He was first MP to propose that women should be given the vote on equal footing with the men who could vote. He got 1/3 support, England gives franchise to women after U.S. He was a great Feminist, his essay “Subjection of Women” is written with great passion and prose. It was a brave position for him to take he was ridiculed for it. He favored democracy, and letting more men from lower classes the right to vote, but believed that people that are more educated should have more votes then less educated because they would make better decisions about what government should do. He would have wanted to extend education to the masses, so that all may have gotten 2-3 votes and so on. He didn’t think it should be extended to where a small elite could carry the day on votes. The idea was that if the working class, and middle class, where divided on an issue, the people with more intelligence would have the power to tip the balance. Mill thought that people with more education would probably not only be better able to make political decisions, especially in terms of intellectually being able to see what would be best for the government to do, but that they would also be more concerned about the common good publicly then people in general. He was intensely educated by his father James. John could read Greek, and Latin at 6 yrs.; his Dad tutored him at home. Dad thought environment was everything. He was treated like an adult, never played games with kids; he had a very cerebral upbringing. He had a period of depression in his twenties, it changed his philosophy, and he recognized the importance of developing feelings along with the intellect, this is something that he stressed in his work. He read poetry to get out of depression; he became devoted to poetry and became a romantic. He fell in love with a married woman Harriet Taylor, was a platonic relationship, after her husband’s death they married 3 years later and probably never consummated the marriage maybe due to Harriet having syphilis. His dedication to “On Liberty” is to her, very devoted to each other. Both buried together in Avignon France where they used to vacation.

Mill as a moral theorist subscribed to a theory we call Utilitarianism. It means—In some way morality is about the maximization of happiness. Whether actions are right or wrong depends on how happiness can be most effectively maximized. I say in some way, because there are allot of different kinds of Utilitarians. Allot of different ways of saying exactly how it is the maximization of happiness comes into morality. Therefore, happiness is clearly an important idea for Utilitarians. Mill has a hedonistic view of happiness, he thinks that happiness can be defined in terms of “pleasure in the absence of pain.” What is distinctive about Mill in this area is that he believes that some kinds of pleasure are better than others are, and add more to a person’s happiness than other kinds of pleasures. He believes in what he calls, “higher quality pleasures.” These are pleasures, he says, that we get from the exercise of faculties that only human beings happen to have. So the intellect, imagination, the moral feelings, these are the sources of higher quality pleasures people use. His view seems to be that a certain quantity of intellectual pleasure just adds more to your happiness, and a given quantity of some lower pleasure like a kind we would share with the animals such as sensation, taste, sexual pleasure, etc. His “higher quality pleasures” in a way echo Aristotle’s ethics. The idea of those things that make us distinctly human that are the real key to our happiness, that is in Mill also. It is not as limited to reason and intellect as Aristotle thinks. Mill recognizes the importance of the appreciation of beauty, aesthetic pleasure, and moral pleasure. He frankly owes a debt to Aristotle that he never properly acknowledges, never gives him proper credit.

“On Liberty” is Mill’s is his most widely read and enduring work. It is an indispensable essay on political thought, which strenuously argues for individual liberty. He is defending what he calls the “liberty principle.” It is a principle that guarantees individuals quite a bit of personal freedom. “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.” These quoted sentences in John Stuart Mill’s book, “On Liberty,” embody the crux of his argument; that the power of the state must intrude as little as possible on the liberty of its citizenry. In essence, Mill was against using the power of the state through its lawmaking apparatus to compel citizens to conduct themselves in ways that society deems moral or appropriate. Mill thought that people had not only a right, but also a duty to develop their intellectual faculties, which is indispensable to maximize their happiness. He believed that society improved for all its citizens when they where left unfettered to the maximum extent possible, allowing them to use their imagination and intellect to improve themselves. Mill postulates a theory that societies usually institute laws based primarily on “personal preference” of its citizenry instead of established principles. This lack of clarity of opinion often leads to the government frequently interfering in the lives of its citizens unnecessarily. For Mill, there are very few times when the state can infringe on the personal liberty of others. Firstly, the state has the right to promulgate laws that prevent a person’s actions from harming others. Secondly, the state must protect those citizens who are not mature enough to protect themselves, such as children. Thirdly, he exempts, “… backward states of society in which the race itself may be considered as in its nonage.” In Mill’s view, immature societies need a benevolent leader to rule them until they have developed to a point where they, “… have attained the capacity of being guided to their own improvement by conviction or persuasion …” Mill said this third exemption did not apply to any of the countries in Europe. Mill believed that forced morality by the state on its citizen’s liberties was destructive to their inward development, and could even lead to a violent reaction by them against the government.

There are different parts of his defense of this, different arguments that he gives. He has a long chapter on freedom of speech and press. He has some very specific reasons why he thinks those freedoms are important. Always in the background for Mill is the idea of development, and making it possible for more people to enjoy these higher quality pleasures. How do we help people develop their distinctly human faculties, in ways that will help them enjoy their higher quality pleasures? Because for him that is the way, we maximize the total amount of happiness that is enjoyed in the world, and that is the object of morality as far as he is concerned. Utilitarianists believe that maximizing happiness is ultimately, what morality is all about. That does not mean maximizing your own happiness that means maximizing the total amount of happiness that is enjoyed, not only by yourself but also by everybody else as well.

Roger Kimball, in his book “Experiments Against Reality” wrote, “On Liberty” was published in 1859, coincidentally the same year as “On the Origin of Species.” Darwin’s book has been credited–and blamed–for all manner of moral and religious mischief. But in the long run “On Liberty” may have effected an even greater revolution in sentiment.

“… 6 – John Stuart Mill essarily disturbed by such temporary aberrations as those of the …”

Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy by John Stuart Mill

If confronted with the question: “To what extent, if any, and probably for what purpose can society as a body, interfere with the liberty of the individual?” The answer is probably, never. Oh well, one clear answer to this infinitely incomprehensible question was provided in the 19th century by John Stuart Mill in this classic writing On Liberty. JSM is the grand papa of what is modern Liberalism. We may not agree with Mill, but if we are to agree or disagree, it is best to first go back to the source. In a sense, Mill comes from the position that restraints always tend to stifle individuality. Freedom is the default, to stifle the abberation. If there is a call to interfere, there had better be a real good reason. Mill, however, does not have his head in the clouds but he does have a blanket statement that could use some complexity. Mill is of the reasoning that society is in the right to interfere with individual liberty only if harm is done or threatened to others. This is, of course, an over simplification. Mill further elaborates with a sense of paternalism and what seems like a progressive attitude about the rights of all people and the disutility of unfair treatment. It is not an easy read but it is a lucid one. In Mill’s view, Harm, or the threat of harm, only brings conduct into public realm by (relating back to Plato) a prima facie condition to intervene. A foundational piece and a staple for the Humanities. To engage in the discourse of Mill is to step in the realm of Public contra Private.

Zip file of the entire book (158MB)

On Liberty and Other Essays by John Stuart Mill and John Gray

John Stuart Mill, 1806-73, worked for the East India Co. helped run Colonial India from England. Minister of Parliament 1865-68 he served one term. Maiden speech was a disaster his second was great success. He was first MP to propose that women should be given the vote on equal footing with the men who could vote. He got 1/3 support, England gives franchise to women after U.S. He was a great Feminist, his essay “Subjection of Women” is written with great passion and prose. It was a brave position for him to take he was ridiculed for it. He favored democracy, and letting more men from lower classes the right to vote, but believed that people that are more educated should have more votes then less educated because they would make better decisions about what government should do. He would have wanted to extend education to the masses, so that all may have gotten 2-3 votes and so on. He didn’t think it should be extended to where a small elite could carry the day on votes. The idea was that if the working class, and middle class, where divided on an issue, the people with more intelligence would have the power to tip the balance. Mill thought that people with more education would probably not only be better able to make political decisions, especially in terms of intellectually being able to see what would be best for the government to do, but that they would also be more concerned about the common good publicly then people in general. He was intensely educated by his father James. John could read Greek, and Latin at 6 yrs.; his Dad tutored him at home. Dad thought environment was everything. He was treated like an adult, never played games with kids; he had a very cerebral upbringing. He had a period of depression in his twenties, it changed his philosophy, and he recognized the importance of developing feelings along with the intellect, this is something that he stressed in his work. He read poetry to get out of depression; he became devoted to poetry and became a romantic. He fell in love with a married woman Harriet Taylor, was a platonic relationship, after her husband’s death they married 3 years later and probably never consummated the marriage maybe due to his having syphilis. His dedication to “On Liberty” is to her, very devoted to each other. Both buried together in Avignon France where they used to vacation.

Mill as a moral theorist subscribed to a theory we call Utilitarianism. It means—In some way morality is about the maximization of happiness. Whether actions are right or wrong depends on how happiness can be most effectively maximized. I say in some way, because there are allot of different kinds of Utilitarians. Allot of different ways of saying exactly how it is the maximization of happiness comes into morality. Therefore, happiness is clearly an important idea for Utilitarians. Mill has a hedonistic view of happiness, he thinks that happiness can be defined in terms of “pleasure in the absence of pain.” What is distinctive about Mill in this area is that he believes that some kinds of pleasure are better than others are, and add more to a person’s happiness than other kinds of pleasures. He believes in what he calls, “higher quality pleasures.” These are pleasures, he says, that we get from the exercise of faculties that only human beings happen to have. So the intellect, imagination, the moral feelings, these are the sources of higher quality pleasures people use. His view seems to be that a certain quantity of intellectual pleasure just adds more to your happiness, and a given quantity of some lower pleasure like a kind we would share with the animals such as sensation, taste, sexual pleasure, etc. His “higher quality pleasures” in a way echo Aristotle’s ethics. The idea of those things that make us distinctly human that are the real key to our happiness, that is in Mill also. It is not as limited to reason and intellect as Aristotle thinks. Mill recognizes the importance of the appreciation of beauty, aesthetic pleasure, and moral pleasure. He frankly owes a debt to Aristotle that he never properly acknowledges, never gives him proper credit.

“On Liberty” is Mill’s is his most widely read and enduring work. It is an indispensable essay on political thought, which strenuously argues for individual liberty. He is defending what he calls the “liberty principle.” It is a principle that guarantees individuals quite a bit of personal freedom. “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.” These quoted sentences in John Stuart Mill’s book, “On Liberty,” embody the crux of his argument; that the power of the state must intrude as little as possible on the liberty of its citizenry. In essence, Mill was against using the power of the state through its lawmaking apparatus to compel citizens to conduct themselves in ways that society deems moral or appropriate. Mill thought that people had not only a right, but also a duty to develop their intellectual faculties, which is indispensable to maximize their happiness. He believed that society improved for all its citizens when they where left unfettered to the maximum extent possible, allowing them to use their imagination and intellect to improve themselves. Mill postulates a theory that societies usually institute laws based primarily on “personal preference” of its citizenry instead of established principles. This lack of clarity of opinion often leads to the government frequently interfering in the lives of its citizens unnecessarily. For Mill, there are very few times when the state can infringe on the personal liberty of others. Firstly, the state has the right to promulgate laws that prevent a person’s actions from harming others. Secondly, the state must protect those citizens who are not mature enough to protect themselves, such as children. Thirdly, he exempts, “… backward states of society in which the race itself may be considered as in its nonage.” In Mill’s view, immature societies need a benevolent leader to rule them until they have developed to a point where they, “… have attained the capacity of being guided to their own improvement by conviction or persuasion …” Mill said this third exemption did not apply to any of the countries in Europe. Mill believed that forced morality by the state on its citizen’s liberties was destructive to their inward development, and could even lead to a violent reaction by them against the government.

There are different parts of his defense of this, different arguments that he gives. He has a long chapter on freedom of speech and press. He has some very specific reasons why he thinks those freedoms are important. Always in the background for Mill is the idea of development, and making it possible for more people to enjoy these higher quality pleasures. How do we help people develop their distinctly human faculties, in ways that will help them enjoy their higher quality pleasures? Because for him that is the way, we maximize the total amount of happiness that is enjoyed in the world, and that is the object of morality as far as he is concerned. Utilitarianists believe that maximizing happiness is ultimately, what morality is all about. That does not mean maximizing your own happiness that means maximizing the total amount of happiness that is enjoyed, not only by yourself but also by everybody else as well.

Roger Kimball, in his book “Experiments Against Reality” wrote, “On Liberty” was published in 1859, coincidentally the same year as “On the Origin of Species.” Darwin’s book has been credited–and blamed–for all manner of moral and religious mischief. But in the long run “On Liberty” may have effected an even greater revolution in sentiment.

I read this book for a graduate class in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in philosophy, political science, and history.

“… 1 N’l'IZO1)U(.’l'ION ON the received and conventional view, John Stuart Mill is an eclectic and transitional thinker, who is never able …”

The Autobiography of John Stuart Mill by John Stuart Mill

John Stuart Mill was raised by his father to be his intellectual heir, and a great genius. There is something moving about the care taken by the father to teach his wunderkind son all that he knew. The father was with Jeremy Bentham the guiding spirit of the philosophical movement Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism was a mechanical kind of philosophy which thought it possible to measure the goodness of action by measuring the amount of pleasure against the amount of pain. Mill followed the path his father set out from him, adopted his father’s values and social conscience and was already by the tender age of twenty a distinguished intellectual figure. But then he asked himself the question if the realization of all his social schemes and all the grand social ideals would bring him happiness. And he understood that it would not. He understood in other words that all this focus on outward good and action, on mechanical measures for human life was missing some vital component in life and in himself. Mill went into a great depression. What brought him out was the reading of the poetry of Wordsworth and the understanding that there is a dimension of feeling, a dimension of the inner life which is somehow more important than all the social thought. This did not mean that Mill abandoned the path of social reform but rather that he changed its direction. Part of this change had to do with his meeting his relationship with Harriet Taylor, his embracing in a certain sense of liberal ideas on the role of women in society. Mill found himself and continued on his intellectual path, a path which would lead him to produce one of the masterpieces of modern political thought, “On Liberty “.

On Liberty by John Stuart Mill

Zip file of the entire book – 154.5MB

Few works argue as forcefully and eloquently for individual liberty as this one book. Written by one of England’s greatest humanitarians, philosophers, and social scientists, this is one of the great classics in Western political philosophy. This book uses plain reason, clear logic, and objective reasoning to argue that the freedom of speech and its related freedoms such as freedom of assembly, press, petition, and religion, are ultimately beneficial to not only the individual, but to society as well. The latter argument goes as such; society is composed of individuals. Hence the knowledge and wisdom of a society is composed of the contributions of every individual. In order for a society to determine the truth, or best opinions on any particular topic, it must be allowed to see/hear all the opinions possible, which is only possible if everyone is allowed to voice their opinion.

This reviewer read this book in high school, and was quite impressed with it back then. It is understandable by most high school seniors. This book should be required reading for all human beings.

Utilitarianism by John, Stuart Mill

Zip file of the entire book 100.1 MB

If someone would like to know what Utilitarianism is, this is the book.
But if someone thinks to find in the Utilitarianism a moral standard to follow, this is just one of the books.
According to the Mill’ theory, we should always act in a manner that will maximize overal happines and in this essay John Stuart Mill wrote which are the effects of each possible action we may perform.
The Speech on Capital Punishment tells one of this possible action.

Principles of Political Economy by John Stuart Mill

This is a very good and very pertinent book. If the people of the time had paid more attention to Mill as opposed to Ricardo and then Marks our world would definitely have been a safer and more peaceful place. Mill has some very sound economic ideas. His ideas are not only reasonable and rational they are possible, compassionate and much more sensible that what we have today; ideas that should be revived and reviewed today. He has a number of interesting answer to basic economic problems. If economics is your passion don’t miss this one. This man is no dummy.