1

The Neo-Classical Utilitarian Philosophy of John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)—

an updated version of Jeremy Bentham
Man and his work:
 John Stuart Mill was born in 1806 in Scotland. He was the son of James Mill. He was
homeschooled. John Stuart Mill began reading the Greek classics at the age of three.
He mastered substantially by the time he was eight. He begun the study of Latin and
tutoring his younger sister. He studied algebra, philosophy, chemistry, and
economics. He excelled in many areas of study. His major interest was history. At the
age of eleven he helped his father James Mill in developing his History of British India.
At the age of sixteen he completed his formal education. He started working in the
East India Company, as a clerk in 1823, and by 1856 reached the position of chief of
the office (a post which commanded an excellent salary). He resigned two years later,
at the age of fifty-two, mainly because of his opposition to the English control of India.
He was less interested in commerce. When he was at the age of sixteen, he organized
a circle of youthful intellectuals and named them, “Utilitarians”. Before he left the East
India Company, he published two works, Logic, and Principles of Political Economy.
 His personal life was not quite vigorous and charming, he became apathetic. The
reason was, his involvement in deep intellectual problems. He lost the touch of
emotions. In order to get out of this boredom, he turned to romantic literature.
Wordsworth provided him a solace. But he got complete salvation, when at the age
of twenty-three he met and fell in love with the wife of another man. Her name was
Mrs. Harriet Taylor, a remarkable woman. After twenty years, the death of her
husband, she was able to marry Mill. And thus she brought enthusiasm in his life. She
stimulated in him a more humanitarian and imaginative approach. Due to her
influence, Mill worked for the equality of women, social welfare, and care for the
poor. He distanced himself from the laissez-faire faith of the Utilitarian Benthamite
circle.
 He wrote and published a number of works, for us his important works are
Utilitarianism, On Liberty (1859), the Autobiography, and Representative Government.
After seven years of marriage Mill’s wife died of tuberculosis. He adopted her
daughter Helen Taylor to care for him in his declining age. He died in 1873.
John Stuart Mill and the New Liberalism/Utility
 Bentham and his philosophical radicals have considerable contribution in the
reformation of British society, but these reforms in suffrage have also gave birth to
new problems. The new industrial age has brought a new set of problem, most of
them were connected to the old problem which was liberty versus authority. There
emerged a problem of the tyranny of the majority. The confusion is evidenced by the
fact that liberals with profoundly humanitarian instincts were simultaneously
arguing for more collectivism on the one hand and more individualism on the other.
Though it may be contradictory in theory, but in practices, it is perfectly logical to
invite the government to provide social welfare, and at the same time demand greater
freedom of speech for the individual. However, it was a dilemma for the liberals and
still it exists in the modern democracies.
 2

 Mill was both collectivist and individualist. His work on the economy tends towards
collectivism in the context of laissez-faire. While regarding individualism, his greatest
fear is of society itself, apart from government. Moreover He considered himself a
utilitarian though it is still debatable because his utilitarianism it quite different.
Democracy and Representative Government
 Mill appreciates the virtues of democracy and warns of its dangers. If it secures
individual freedom, it is highly valuable, and the best form of government. It
contributes to the improvement of man. Mill is deviating from the Bentham’s
utilitarianism when he is talking about the improvement of man. He is neglecting the
idea that happiness is the end of a system. Mill thought that men will do better in a
democracy even if they are not happier. He also argues that a bad despotism is
preferable to a good one, since despotism is always degrading, and if it is benevolent
people are prone to accept their degradation. He modified the utilitarian principle.
 In his work, utilitarianism starts from the premise of “greatest happiness” and then
argues that such happiness should be measured by both qualitative and quantitative
methods. He also states that happiness has its own lower and high kinds which is
quite contrary to Bentham. To Mill, what men are is as important and as what men
do. This is what he stresses on in On Liberty.
 For Mill, the dangers of democracy lies in its advantages. In a democracy men are free
to pursue their own interests. If they are wise, they will understand that their selfish
interests is inseparable from the general interests, and this knowledge will lead them
to act so as to secure individual benefits through social advantage.
 Unfortunately, majority are incapable of displaying this kind of farsightedness. They
must be pressed in the direction of their true interests, but that does not justify elite
rule. Men must be permitted a degree of participation, or their loss of freedom will
be greater than any material advantage that might be gained by despotism, no matter
how benevolent. The answer lies in a representative system, but one somewhat more
complex from Bentham.
 Mill’s representative system comprises three levels—the people, their elected
representatives, and a policy-making body. Citizens will choose their legislative
agents. They are capable of this choice, and the process must involve debate,
discussion, criticism, and education. This level constitutes the base of a good
representative system.
 The representative elected, will have knowledge and judgment superior than the
electorates. But they will lack the formulation of intricate legislation as required by
the complex industrial society.
 Therefore, for this purpose there is a need of a superior, expert and trained body.
They will not be responsible to public. They will be allowed to enact legislation on
their own authority. But their ability to identify the general interest is greater than
the people and their representatives. It is the duty of this body to submit legislative
proposals to the elected representative. The representatives or legislators in turn
debate, question members of the policy body, and after thorough argumentation and
consideration with the constituents accept or reject the offered policies. The
members of the policy body can be removed by the representatives. Similarly, the
 3

representatives can be removed or replaced by their people. The power of the

removal can be misused either by people or representatives but the element of
responsibility is necessary or the democratic principle will be destroyed.
 Two additional precautions are necessary! Why? Because the majority control can be
dangerous for minority. In order to curb the misuse of majority influence and to
maintain a balance of power, a third party should be established. And the second
measure is always to keep the way open for a minority to become a majority. The
ruling group should not take any action that will become an obstacle to the legal and
peaceful replacement by the opposition. It also involves the guarantee of the right to
criticize, and the guarantee of freedom of speech, press and assembly that make these
rights meaningful.
On Liberty (1859)—Harm Principle, Why Freedom is necessary and Clash of
Ideas
 Mill’s On Liberty, deals with the question of the freedom of individual in society itself.
For him, the huge and monolithic society is more dangerous for the individuality than
government. He was more interested in this work than any other.
 Mill argues, in the past the conflict between liberty and authority involved a contest
between the people and government. Liberty means freedom from government. But
today with the development of democracy and representative system its importance
has been declined. The tyranny of the government can be restrained by various
constitutional safeguards. But society may be tyrant and it has no need to rely upon
its governmental agents to do so. He remarks,
“Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues
wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things
with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more
formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though
not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means
of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and
enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny
of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against
the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the
tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties,
its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent
from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the
formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and
compels all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its
own.”
 He wants to say, if a majority of society is agreed upon particular standards of
conduct, it tends to equate morality with its own prejudices and to punish cruelly
those who do not live in accordance with them. He also says that absolute freedom in
the society in not possible, but the question is where line should be drawn properly
between man and society? He has developed a criterion, as he remarks,
“The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or
collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their
number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power
can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized
 4

community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own

good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”
 He adopts the principle of “clear and present danger” which is known as “Mill’s Harm
Principle”. Society is justified in restraining the actions of the individual if restraint is
necessary for the protection of society. Beside this, there is no way one can put
someone in conformity for his own good.
 Moreover, Mill says that while some individual actions are obviously harmful and
must be prohibited there are also important areas of human concern in which
restraints should never be imposed.
“It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness; demanding
liberty of conscience in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of
thought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all
subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological. The
liberty of expressing and publishing opinions may seem to fall under a
different principle, since it belongs to that part of the conduct of an
individual which concerns other people; but, being almost of as much
importance as the liberty of thought itself, and resting in great part on
the same reasons, is practically inseparable from it. Secondly, the
principle requires liberty of tastes and pursuits; of framing the plan of
our life to suit our own character; of doing as we like, subject to such
consequences as may follow: without impediment from our fellow
creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even though
they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong. Thirdly,
from this liberty of each individual, follows the liberty, within the same
limits, of combination among individuals; freedom to unite, for any
purpose not involving harm to others.
 Freedom of conscience, of thought, of speech and opinion, of personal life, and of
association (unless directed to the injury of others)—these are the substantive
freedoms with which society should never interfere. For Mill, the freedom of opinion
is absolute. As he says at one place, “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion,
and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified
in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing
mankind.”

 Why is this? First, to silence an opinion is to rob mankind. If the silenced opinion is
right, the loss is obvious. And if it is wrong, men lose the chance to gain a clearer
perception and livelier impression of the truth. Second, the truth is a changing thing,
it may change in accordance with the circumstances, therefore, and there is a need
of free speech to determine it. Third, we should be worry about the truth because
history is witness to the persecution of it. Fourth, silencing an opinion is an
“assumption of infallibility”, but the fact is that no one is infallible and no one is
capable of knowing the whole truth. Finally, truth needs always to be attacked in
order to preserve its vigor. In other words, truth is a by-product of the clash of ideas.
 5

 Society should encourage nonconformity because that is the only way to progress.
Free thinking and imagination is a way to progress. Even the most radical thinkers
should not be prevented from expressing their opinions. He remarks,
In this age, the mere example of non-conformity, the mere refusal to
bend the knee to custom, is itself a service. Precisely because the
tyranny of opinion is such as to make eccentricity a reproach, it is
desirable, in order to break through that tyranny, that people should be
eccentric. Eccentricity has always abounded when and where strength
of character has abounded; and the amount of eccentricity in a society
has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigor,
and moral courage it contained. That so few now dare to be eccentric
marks the chief danger of the time.

Freedom Truth Utility

Conclusion:
 Mill argument in favor of the freedom of speech is not based on some
natural rights theory rather it is a utilitarian one. It is the way, the greater
happiness of the greater number can be achieved.
 He also regarded freedom not only a means to the end of happiness but
an end itself. This is where he departs from the Benthamite company, he
wanted a moral community while Benthamites wanted a happy
community.
 Mill is not totally preoccupied with the “greatest number”, but with the
“individual”.
 For him, freedom has both an individual and social value. Though we find
him, in On Liberty that he is more pressing on the value of individual than
social.
 Pain and Pleasure unlike Bentham are not the sole determiners of moral
value.
 For Mill, human dignity is more respectable than happiness.
 Freedom and morality are dependent upon each other. As he says,
“The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing
it; and a State which postpones the interests of their mental expansion and
elevation to a little more of administrative skill, or of that semblance of it which
practice gives, in the details of business; a State which dwarfs its men, in order
that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial
purposes—will find that with small men no great thing can really be
accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed
everything will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in
order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish.”
 6

Class Discussion/Activity:
 Synthesis of Rights and Utility
 Mill’s Harm Principle—Contradictions (Agency, Harm and Good
Science)
 What is Harm?
 Thalidomide Disaster in the 1950s—who is responsible?
 Truth as by-product of the clash of ideas
 Libertarianism
 Night-watchman State—Robert Nozick