Jhon Mills

John Stuart Mill was a prominent British philosopher who lived in the 19th century.
He was a strong advocate for utilitarianism, a consequentialist ethical theory that
evaluates the morality of an action based on its ability to promote the greatest
happiness for the greatest number of people. In this essay, we will explore Mill's
utilitarianism, including his advocacies of utilitarianism, and the differences between
Mill's and Bentham's utilitarianism.
Mill's Utilitarianism:
Mill's utilitarianism was based on the principle of utility, which holds that the
morality of an action is determined by its ability to promote the greatest happiness
for the greatest number of people. Mill believed that the ultimate goal of human
action should be the promotion of happiness, and that this goal could be achieved by
maximizing the overall happiness of society.
Mill's advocacy for utilitarianism was based on the belief that morality should be
based on the principle of utility, and that individuals should strive to promote the
greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. He argued that utilitarianism
was a more objective and scientific approach to ethics than other ethical theories, as
it was based on the measurable outcomes of actions.
Mill's advocacy for utilitarianism was also based on his belief in individual liberty,
which he believed was essential to a flourishing society. He argued that individuals
should be free to pursue their own happiness, as long as they did not harm others.
Mill believed that a society that values individual liberty would be more creative,
innovative, and prosperous, as individuals would be free to explore new ideas and
pursue their passions.
Advocacies
Individual Liberty:
Mill believed that individual liberty was essential to a flourishing society and that
individuals should be free to pursue their own happiness, as long as they did not
harm others. He argued that the government should not interfere with the personal
choices and actions of individuals, unless they posed a threat to the well-being of
others.
Mill's advocacy for individual liberty was based on the belief that individuals are the
best judges of their own happiness and that they should be free to pursue their own
interests and goals. He argued that a society that values individual liberty would be
more creative, innovative, and prosperous, as individuals would be free to explore
new ideas and pursue their passions.
The Harm Principle:
Mill's advocacy for individual liberty was tempered by his belief in the harm
principle, which holds that the government has the right to interfere with an
individual's actions if they pose a threat to the well-being of others. Mill argued that
individuals should be free to act as they please, as long as their actions do not harm
others.
The harm principle was a key component of Mill's utilitarianism, as it allowed for the
protection of individual liberty while also ensuring the well-being of society as a
whole. Mill believed that the harm principle should be applied to all areas of life,
including politics, economics, and social life.
Higher and Lower Pleasures:
Mill also believed that not all pleasures were created equal, and that some pleasures
were more valuable than others. He argued that there were two types of pleasures:
higher and lower pleasures. Higher pleasures were intellectual and spiritual
pleasures, such as the enjoyment of literature, art, and philosophy, while lower
pleasures were physical pleasures, such as the enjoyment of food, drink, and sex.
Mill believed that higher pleasures were more valuable than lower pleasures, as they
were more fulfilling and contributed to the overall well-being of society. He argued
that individuals should strive to cultivate higher pleasures and should be encouraged
to pursue intellectual and spiritual growth.
Differences between Mill's and Bentham's Utilitarianism:
While Mill's utilitarianism was based on Bentham's ideas, there were several key
differences between Mill's and Bentham's utilitarianism. One of the main differences
was Mill's emphasis on higher and lower pleasures. Mill believed that there were two
types of pleasures: higher and lower pleasures. Higher pleasures were intellectual
and spiritual pleasures, such as the enjoyment of literature, art, and philosophy,
while lower pleasures were physical pleasures, such as the enjoyment of food, drink,
and sex. Mill believed that higher pleasures were more valuable than lower pleasures,
as they were more fulfilling and contributed to the overall well-being of society.
Bentham, on the other hand, believed that all pleasures were equal, and that the goal
of utilitarianism was to maximize pleasure and minimize pain.
Another difference between Mill's and Bentham's utilitarianism was their views on
individual liberty. While both Mill and Bentham believed in the importance of
individual liberty, Mill's advocacy for individual liberty was tempered by his belief in
the harm principle, which holds that the government has the right to interfere with
an individual's actions if they pose a threat to the well-being of others. Bentham, on
the other hand, believed that the government should have a greater role in regulating
individual behavior, in order to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest
number of people.
Conclusion:
John Stuart Mill was a prominent philosopher who was a strong advocate for
utilitarianism, a consequentialist ethical theory that evaluates the morality of an
action based on its ability to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number
of people. Mill's advocacy for utilitarianism was based on the belief that morality
should be based on the principle of utility, and that individuals should strive to
promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Mill's emphasis on
individual liberty, the harm principle, and higher and lower pleasures laid the
foundation for modern liberal democracy and influenced many social and political
movements around the world. While Mill's utilitarianism was based on Bentham's
ideas, there were several key differences between Mill's and Bentham's
utilitarianism, including Mill's emphasis on higher and lower pleasures and his
advocacy for individual liberty tempered by the harm principle.
Representative Government
Mill regards representative democracy as a necessary precondition for the progress
of citizens of any state. Thus, he considers Representative Government as the best
form of government. He examines the efficacy of a government on bases of degree of
the success of a government to fulfill adequately the purposes of government. For
Mill, the point of having a government was that it performed two main functions: it
must use the existing qualities and skills of the citizens to best serve their interests,
and it must improve the moral, intellectual and active qualities of these citizens. A
despotic government may be able to fulfill the first purpose, but will fail in the
second. Only a representative government is able to fulfill these two functions. It is a
representative government that combines judiciously the two principles of
participation and competence which is able to fulfill the two functions of protecting
and educating the citizens.
According to Mill, representative government ensures the promotion of common
interest of a society instead of the partial and sinister interests of some group or
class. The participation in the political process must be as extensive as possible, so
that every individual has a say in controlling the government and thus protecting his
interests. It is on this basis that Mill demanded the right to vote for women. He
advocated the extension of the suffrage to cover everyone except those who could not
read and write, did not pay taxes.
Mill recommended compulsory education, for that would make individual citizens
wise, competent, and independent judges. He always emphasized that representative
democracy was only possible in a state that was small and homogenous, an assertion
that has been nullified by the success of plural democracies like India.
Proportional Representation
As representative democracy gives undue prominences and power to sheer numerical
majority, it tends towards collective mediocrity. It may leads to under representation
of the minorities in the parliament and therefore suppression of their interests.
Ordinarily, in a representative democracy, the majority party succeeds in securing a
larger number of seats in the parliament than its proportionate number of votes
would justify. As a rule, minorities suffer from under representation in the
parliament. To guard against this injustice to minorities and to make sure that
majorities and minorities get their due share of representation in the parliament,
Mill supported the system of proportional representation which he regarded as
necessary for representative democracy.
Mill maintains that it is an essential part of democracy that minorities should be
adequately represented. No real democracy, nothing but a false show of democracy,
is possible without it. To guard against the injustice to minorities and to make sure
that majorities and minorities get their due share of representation in the
parliament, Mill supported the system of proportional representation which he
regarded as necessary for representative democracy.
He switched his allegiance to proportional representation as a means of allowing the
wise and noble few to exercise their due influence over the mindless majority. He
argues that, a legislature should represent all the sections of the electorate and no
minority should go without any representation in the legislature. Legislatures are
compared to maps. One cannot draw a map of a country ignoring any part of the
country. All the parts of the country should be included in the map. Similarly, all the
sections of the electorate should be represented in the legislature.
The advocates of proportional representation point out that the majority principle is
based on the assumption of a bi-party system, where there are only two major
political parties which compete in the elections. In this bi-party system the majority
rules and the minority remains in the opposition and criticize the government. But,
really speaking in this society there are various sections with their own peculiar
problems and opinions. To make the legislature a true mirror of the nation, it is
essential that all the sections are directly and more so proportionately reflected in the
legislature.
According to Mill, the principle of proportional representation allows the minorities
to be given a voice, and for all views to be brought to the table for serious
consideration. The views of a minority may be overruled after serious debate and
deliberation, but what Mill is against is the idea of not allowing the views of the
minorities to be given some consideration.
In any real equal democracy every or any section would be represented, not
disproportionately but proportionately. A majority of the electorate would always
have a majority of representative but a minority of the electorate would always have a
minority of the representatives. The supporters of proportional representation
further argue that under this system there will not be any necessity to readjust or
redraw the boundaries of the constituency to equate the number of electors of
electors in the constituency on the basis of increasing population.
In the scheme of proportional representation through the method of preferential
voting, as devised by Thomas Hare, Mill saw one of the very greatest improvements
yet made in the theory and practice of government, by giving both to the majority
and to the minority representation in proportion to their numbers, it would tend to
decrease the power of former and increase that of the latter. Mill's special tenderness
for the rights and opinions of minorities caused him to see in proportional
representation a means of obviating the danger of majority tyranny.
Mill did not greatly fear persecution of isolated individuals who expressed heterodox
opinions, because such individuals were seldom considered dangerous to the
community. What he did fear was persecution of minority groups, because organised
minorities roused fears for the safety of the established order and invited attack.
Protection of minorities was therefore, the true test of freedom of opinion. And for
that reason Mill advocated proportional representation, which was, in his view, the
most effective method of protecting the freedom of the individual to express opinions
that roused general hostility. It was this same impetus for wanting everyone to be
represented that made Mill support Hare's system of proportional representation. In
the absence of proportional representation, Mill pointed out that minorities went
unrepresented.
Plural Voting
Representative democracy, though generally better than other forms of government,
suffers from two dangers ie. (1) general ignorance and incapacity in the controlling
body in the state and in the average member in the parliament and (2) the danger of
the democratic machinery being in the controlling hands of a section of population
whose interests are not identical with the general welfare of the whole community.
Moreover, though he supported universal suffrage, he gave the idea of weighted
suffrage i.e. plural votes to higher educated citizens. This would give proportionate
weight to men of superior intelligence and in order to prevent the rich higher
educated men practicing class legislation, he was in favour of the poor getting plural
votes by proving their superior intelligence by voluntary examinations. Thus, Mill's
weighted suffrage
suggests that he was not in favour of political equality but was for intellectual
aristocracy. Thus, his belief in participation led him to advocate a widening of the
franchise, his belief in competence led him to recommend plural voting. Mill opined
that the franchise should not be widened without plural voting being introduced.
Plural voting meant that with everyone - having at least one vote, some individuals
would have more than one vote because they were, for example, more educated. It
assumed a graduated scale of educational attainments, awarding at the bottom, one
additional vote to a skilled labourer and two to a foreman, and at the top, as many as
five to professional men, writers and artists, public functionaries, university
graduates and members of learned societies.
Plural voting would ensure that a better caliber of representatives would be elected,
and so the general interest would not be hampered by the poor quality of members of
Parliament. Mill sought to combine his two principles in other institutions of
representative democracy as well. Taking the example of representative assembly,
Mill maintains that this body must be a committee of grievances and a congress of
opinions. Every opinion existing in the nation should find a voice here; that is how
every group's interests have a better chance of being protected.
At the same time, Mill also stood for legislative competence and administrative skills.
He argued that an amateur legislative body is suited neither for the business of
legislation nor of administration. Legislations were to be framed by a group of
competent legal experts and administration should be in the hands of the
bureaucracy. Mill's arguments employed two kinds of competence, instrumental and
moral. Instrumental competence is the ability to discover the best means to certain
ends and the ability to identify ends that satisfy individuals' interests as they perceive
them. Moral competence is the ability to discern ends that are intrinsically superior
for individuals and society.
Morally competent leaders are able to recognize the general interest and resist the
sinister interests that dwell not only in the government but also in the democratic
majority. The purpose of plural voting is to ensure that morally competent leaders
get elected to the legislature.
Mill prescribed registration tests for checking performances, universal education for
all children and plurality of votes to the better educated, in order to balance the lack
of voting rights to the uneducated. He also recommended the disqualification of
three categories of dependents: a) those who were unable to pay local taxes; b) those
who were dependent on public welfare would be excluded for five years from the last
day of receipt; and c) those who were legal bankrupts and moral deviants like
habitual drunkards. He, however, championed equal voting rights for all irrespective
of their sex or colour.
MILL'S CONCEPT OF LIBERTY
J. S. Mill is universally regarded as a passionate advocate of liberty. He vigorously
whispered for imparting great importance to individual liberty and emphasized that
for all-round development of human personality.
governmental interference in individual activity should e reduced to the minimum.
According to Mill, Liberty is extremely important in democracy. It is an essential
condition
Liberty means freedom of an individual. We need liberty to protect ourselves from
undue
interference of the state. Hence, area of action of the state should be limited. Any
extension in the activities of the state means erosion of individual liberty.
Individualist like
Mill believed that the state comes into existence to protect life, liberty and property
of the individual.
Mill gave importance to individual liberty because there are some reasons which are
born out from the circumstances in England. In 1832 Reform Act was passed by the
Government of England. It expanded the governmental machinery and increased
functions of the state. Simultaneously there was a demand for more liberty by the
people. All these circumstances made liberty of the individual the theme in England
in the middle of the 19th century. In that situation Mill published his essay "On
Liberty", to defend the case of individual liberty. He said Acts made by the
government were
tyrannical and interfered in individual freedom. J. S. Mill believes that the
government comes into existence for social well being. Political institutions find their
basis in human will and interest.
I agree with the statement that "John Stuart Mill is a champion of liberty in western
political thought" because of the following reasons: Freedom of the Individual:
Mill believed that the progress of society depended largely on the originality and
energy of the individual. The society would be enriched by the variety of characters in
it. Hence, he emphasizes that the individual must be allowed maximum liberty to
determine his own affairs.
He focus Need for the enrichment of individuals personality. If state does not provide
them an opportunity to develop and expand their mental faculties, it is neither good
for the individuals nor for the government. He regarded liberty as the most
important principle to protect and promote individuality.
Relation between the state and Liberty: Mill explained the relationship between the
state and the liberty of the people as follows:-
J. S. Mill believed that an individual has two aspects of his life.
1) The individual aspect - which concerned him alone
2) Social aspect - every individual is the integral part of society.
Accordingly the actions of individual may be divided into two categories i.e. 1) Self
regarding actions - Individual is sovereign over his own body and mind. 2) Other
regarding actions- The actions of the individual, which affect society can be regulated
by the state. It is a social aspect of individual's personality. Here the society has the
right of interference in individual's actions.
Mill was against excessive state interference - He said state has the right of regulating
the actions of individuals which affect the society. The state can compel the
individual to perform his duties and obligations as a member of the society. The
function of the state is to enhance liberty.
Mill' s classification of Liberty:
Mill pleads for certain freedoms for the individual without which he cannot develop
his personality property. These freedoms are as follows

 Freedom of conscience
  Liberty of thought and its expression Liberty of pursuits and tastes
 Liberty of association.
 Liberty to pursue his own vocation in life.
 Liberty of religion and morals.
Mill has stressed on liberty of thought and expression. The society must follow the
individual freedom of thought and expression. Society must
not suppress individual's opinion on the plea that his opinion is contrary to
commonly held opinion. Freedom of expression is very useful because it leads to
discussion and discovery of truth. Freedom of thought and expression leads to the
development of personality on individual lines. Therefore variety of characters which
enrich the society.
Mill offered some arguments for liberty of expression in the service of truth: a) the
dissenting opinion could be true and its expression would promote humankind of
useful knowledge; and b) even if the opinion was false, it would strengthen the
correct view by challenging it.
Mill laid great stress on liberty of thought and expression. Mill's theory of liberty of
the individual is based upon three essential elements:
1. A strong plea for the importance of impulse and desire in the individual and letting
the individual follow his own impulses in actions which concern him alone.
2. Insistence on the view that spontaneity and individuality are essential elements in
individual and social welfare.
3. Revolt against the tyranny of custom, tradition or public opinion which might
hinder the expression and development of individuality.
But, he imposes two limitations on this liberty:
1. The individual was not at liberty to do any harm to his fellow beings.
2. He must share labours and sacrifices to secure the society or individuals against
harm.