Book Review: On Liberty by John Stuart Mill

On Liberty by John Stuart Mill edited with an introduction by Elizabeth Rapaport

A core problem in democracies is balancing the freedom of individuals to act in ways they think are acceptable against the restraints of government protecting social order. Mill lays out a lot of philosophical groundwork in support of the rights of individuals against the will of the majority, which can often feel like (and sometime is) tyrannical. Mill's first attempt to resolve this problem is by invoking the principle of doing no harm to others. A person can decide for themselves what is okay to do and, as long as no one else is effected, that person should not be interfered with. His first chapter is about freedom of thought and discussion. He advocates for very broad freedoms with regard to opinions and recognizes a need for ideas to be presented and argued over in order to prove their worth. He objects to opinions that are held by tradition or authority without knowing the reasoning behind those opinions. 

Mill acknowledges that the problem of liberty becomes trickier when moving from individual opinions to individual actions. While he believes in a free market of ideas, he states that opinions which encourage or inspire bad actions can legitimately be limited by society. All the more so, the actions that harm others (his idea of "bad actions") can and must be held in check by society. He recognizes that very few actions are not public actions--as long as any other person is involved, the action is public. Also, actions provide examples or ideas to other people, possibly causing harm. Further, there can be circumstances where the state has an obligation to protect someone from harming themselves. So he needs to refine the No-Harm-To-Others principle to allow exceptions. 

His new criterion for social obligation is to act in a way not to violate a specific obligation to another person or group of persons. Some relationships create obligations (which are often mutual or complimentary), like between husbands and wives, parents and children, employers and employees. One can't spend money recklessly and cause harm to family members or failure to make payroll. Contractual obligations need to be fulfilled and can be enforced. Mill cites two types of public coercion. First, public opinion can and does punish people who do harm through their actions; fear of public, social criticism is a motivator not to do acts contrary to what's publicly acceptable. Second, legal punishments are used to redress grievances between individuals or groups. The tricky part of the system is to find the dividing line between practices that can be tolerated by society (Mill cites the example of Mormons) and those that cannot. At the end of this essay, he provides some examples of applying his principles.

Mill presents a clear and thorough argument for his position. While his investigation is interesting, I found it incomplete. As a utilitarian, his idea of liberty is built on what makes one happy and he depends on people to discover what their own happiness is and pursue it in their own ways. There is no depth of understanding human nature, no authentic human anthropology, underpinning Mill's theory. Anyone can chose any form of happiness and claim it is authentic regardless of its actual compatibility with their own human nature, as long as they are not harming others. Mill needs a more robust anthropology in order to understand and explain what constitutes harm for other people and how much harm can be tolerated in a democratic society.

Mildly recommended--this is a classical philosophical text but it is not the best there is.

Book Review: Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill

Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill

This classic text gives a fairly succinct (a little more than sixty pages) presentation and defense of the Utilitarian view of morality. The basic principle of utility is the greatest happiness principle, the idea that an action is morally good if it promotes the most happiness. Mill describes what Utilitarianism is, what the principle is based on, and Utilitarianism's relationship with justice.

Mill identifies the "greatest happiness principle" as that whereby "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." [p. 7] Every moral theory is based on some greatest good that is good in itself. For utilitarians, that good is happiness (as it is for most other philosophies). Mill immediately argues (as do serious Epicureans) that man's greatest happiness lies not in base pleasures. Humans have higher faculties that need satisfaction. These greater abilities give more desirable pleasures. Virtuous action is a greater pleasure than fine dining. Thus "Utilitarianism, therefore, could only attain its end by the general cultivation of nobleness of character." [p. 11] Mill also clarifies that the "greatest good" is not a selfish good, where the moral agent only acts in his or her own interest. The greatest happiness has a more global scope.

Mill bases the principle of utility on two sources of happiness: external sanctions and internal sanctions. External sanctions are simple--happiness comes from the approval of others and pain from disapproval ("others" including both our fellow men and God). Internal sanctions are a bit trickier, but not too much--happiness comes from "a feeling in our own mind." [p. 27] By following duty, we feel pleasure; by contradicting duty, we feel pain. While Mill does acknowledge that some individuals have malformed consciences, he accepts the general feeling of the public about what is right and wrong, what is dutiful and not dutiful. If most people consider something right, than it is right. For Mill, "the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable is that people do actually desire it." [p. 34] He goes on to argue that wealth, fame, power, and virtue are all parts of happiness because these are desired as ends in themselves (though they might be used as means to other ends). So the internal sanction is the feeling that results from choosing something desired for itself.

Mill moves on to the relation between Utilitarianism and justice. Justice seems to originate from a separate principle than utility. After looking at some popular opinions and some etymology, Mill comes to his own formulation of what founds the notion of justice. It has two parts: a rule of conduct and a feeling that sanctions that rule. Rules and laws are supposed to be conducive to general happiness (or at least the prevention of pain). The sentiment that gives force to those rules is the desire that those who break the rules be punished. Notions of rights and equality are built from this foundation. Justice can be seen as promoting greater happiness by preventing others from doing harm.

While Mill does a good job arguing, I did find a lot of unpersuasive points. The "greatest happiness" principle sounds good in theory but is fraught with peril and ambiguity in actual reality. People often desire contrary things and it is difficult if not impossible to "math out" which of the contrary things will bring about the most happiness. Just because people desire a certain thing does not mean that thing will bring about happiness, even if they desire that thing as an end in itself. Surely the desire for vengeance against wrongdoers is a universal human experience, but can't a more thorough analysis be done to find why we have that feeling? A deeper understanding of human nature and human society is required but not found in Mill.

Slightly recommended--this is a good primer on Utilitarianism.