These three (fairly long) essays on the liberty of the individual, practical ethics, and the role of women are absolutely fundamental. Though written in the mid-19th-century, Mill still has a message for today, and that for three reasons:

(1) He was ahead of his time and his thoughts helped shape our society. By reading him, we are looking at and appreciating our foundation.

(2) His lucid thoughts are a good reminder not to lose our values when we (and especially our governments) are in danger of doing so by unnecessarily infringing on the liberty of the individual.

(3) Some of his critiques are even more applicable today than back then. For example, Mill shows that technological progress, too, can be an infringement on individuality. Said he,

"The circumstances which surround different classes and individuals, and shape their characters, are daily becoming more assimilated. Formerly, different ranks, different neighbourhoods, different trades and professions, lived in what might be called different worlds; at present, to a great degree in the same. Comparatively speaking, they now read the same things, listen to the same things, see the same things, go to the same places, have their hopes and fears directed to the same objects, have the same rights and liberties, and the same means of asserting them. Great as are the differences of position which remain, they are nothing to those which have ceased. And the assimilation is still proceeding. All the political changes of the age promote it, since they all tend to raise the low and to lower the high. Every extension of education promotes it, because education brings people under common influences, and gives them access to the general stock of facts and sentiments. Improvements in the means of communication promote it, by bringing the inhabitants of distant places into personal contact, and keeping up a rapid flow of changes of residence between one place and another."

Reading the same things, listening to the same things, seeing and doing and thinking the same things - that is even more true today than in the 19th century. I think it's safe to say that Mill would have been horrified at much of today's pop culture, pop thinking, and pop politics. Horrified not as some kind of self-righteous purist, but as someone who believed in the value of individuality and who saw individuality destroyed by pop sameness.

One area in which he applied this danger of sameness was education. For me, this is especially interesting, since I live in Germany. For various reasons, my wife and I want to homeschool our children, which is illegal here. Germany does not just have mandatory education, but mandatory *schooling* (a holdover from Hitler, by the way).

Now this is what Mill said about sameness vs. individuality in education:

"If the government would make up its mind to require for every child a good education, it might save itself the trouble of providing one. It might leave to parents to obtain the education where and how they pleased, and content itself with helping to pay the school fees of the poorer classes of children, and defraying the entire school expenses of those who have no one else to pay for them. The objections which are urged with reason against State education, do not apply to the enforcement of education by the State, but to the State's taking upon itself to direct that education: which is a totally different thing.

"That the whole or any large part of the education of the people should be in State hands, I go as far as any one in deprecating. All that has been said of the importance of individuality of character, and diversity in opinions and modes of conduct, involves, as of the same unspeakable importance, diversity of education. A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another: and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, a priesthood, an aristocracy, or the majority of the existing generation, in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body.

"An education established and controlled by the State should only exist, if it exist at all, as one among many competing experiments, carried on for the purpose of example and stimulus, to keep the others up to a certain standard of excellence. Unless, indeed, when society in general is in so backward a state that it could not or would not provide for itself any proper institutions of education, unless the government undertook the task: then, indeed, the government may, as the less of two great evils, take upon itself the business of schools and universities, as it may that of joint stock companies, when private enterprise, in a shape fitted for undertaking great works of industry, does not exist in the country.

"But in general, if the country contains a sufficient number of persons qualified to provide education under government auspices, the same persons would be able and willing to give an equally good education on the voluntary principle, under the assurance of remuneration afforded by a law rendering education compulsory, combined with State aid to those unable to defray the expense."

Before I end up quoting the whole essay on Liberty, let me draw rein here.

As for the other two essays, in "The Subjection of Women," Mill mainly says (I paraphrase), "Why should we deny women certain rights and positions on the ground that they are supposedly unfit for them? If they are unfit, they will prove their unfitness by trying. If they succeed, they succeed. This means that forbidding them rights is completely superfluous if they are not equal to the task and completely unjust if they are equal."

And the point of the essay "Utilitarianism" is not, as I had previously thought, a justification of the means by the end. It is not a kind of morality that, because it teaches the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, inevitably leads to the tyranny of the majority over the minority. In fact, like the essay on Liberty, it is a plea for the opposite: for a society that respects and protects the individual as much as possible.

Needless to say, it was a great read. I wish every politician in the world made this their bed-time literature. Come to think of it, it wouldn't hurt to lose a little individuality by *everyone* reading this book.

"On Liberty," "The Subjection of Women," and "Utilitarianism" contain important information on human liberty. It's also important for the world of today because most or us are sick and tired of racism and government suppression. John Stuart Mill talks of the individual's rights in "On Liberty," the women's rights in "The Subjection of Women," and government control in "Utilitarianism". He makes good points on many things, including marriage, trade, freedom of religion, etc. Now, the author's writing is complex, so a dictionary MUST be handy. And a few parts don't really make sense (the notes do help a lot). But all in all, the basic writings of Mill shouldn't be forgotten.

A-

this isn't the highest quality paper, but it's an economical way to get three works. there is not much in the way of editorial content, but depending on your interests that may be fine.

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.

I am interested in Mill's contributions to utilitarian philosophy. Utilitarianism holds that morals should be based upon those acts which promote the greatest good to the greatest number of people. Human actions which foster happiness are held to be right, while those which yield the converse are wrong. Mill defines happiness as intended pleasure with the absence of pain. Also, he maintains that intended pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things desirable as personal ends. Pleasure which employs one's higher faculties tends to give more satisfaction than baser pleasures, or mere sensations. Few humans would exchange their limited, fleeting pleasures for the fullest ration of the pleasures of the "lower" animals. Since a noble character is made happier by its nobleness, utilitarianism can only attain its end towards the multiplication of happiness through a general elevation of the nobleness of the character of the larger population.

Mill states that pleasures and pains have different values to the actor. Only the judgment honed by experience can assist us in assessing appropriate trade-offs in acquiring a particular pleasure at the cost of gaining a specific pain as well. This type of cost/benefit analysis advocated by utilitarians gives rise to the criticism that utilitarianism results in coldness and lack of sympathy towards others. However, Mill claims that the proof of the worth of utilitarianism, or any other moral system, lies in its ability to produce good results.

Although it is sometimes difficult to wade through the dryness of Mill's rhetoric, it is truly worth it for the philosophical insights contained. This book is a good survey of Mill's thoughts on utilitarian ethics and many other subjects of value.