Key Thinker: John Stuart Mill (1806-73)
Overview:
- Middle ground between classical liberalism and modern liberalism.
- Son of utilitarian philosopher James Mill.
- Was also a politician and campaign who served to develop Locke, Wollstonecraft and others
ideas.
- Key Work: On Liberty.
- Context: era of the industrial revolution.
Beliefs:
- Mill’s enduring idea, outlined in On Liberty (1859), was one which was later known as
‘negative freedom’. This argued that freedom mainly involved a absence of restraint. This
connected to Mill’s ‘harm principle’- which said that individual’s actions should be tolerated
by the state and others, except if they harmed others.
- Mill divided actions into ‘self-regarding’ and ‘other regarding’. The former involves religious
worship and robust expression of personal views, does not impinge on others, so should
therefore be tolerated. The latter involves violent or riotous behaviour, which ‘harms’ the
freedom of others in society, so should not be tolerated. The tolerance of diverse opinions
was very important as it ensured new ideas were exposed, and bad ideas put to rest with
debate.
- Mill’s importance lies in the fact that his ideas represented something more sophisticated
than in classical liberalism. He saw liberty as not just a ‘natural right’, but as the engine of
ongoing human development. As such, Mill’s human nature was never finished, there was
always room for improvement.
- Mill didn’t want to just liberate individuals as they were at present, instead he pondered
what individuals could become- a concept he termed ‘individuality’ and which has since
been referred to as developmental individualism. He famously stated ‘better to be Socrates
dissatisfied, than a pig satisfied’.
- Mill’s distinction between ‘individualism’ and ‘individuality’ would have crucial implications
for how he approached the issue of democracy. He was particularly concerned that the
timeless liberal principle of ‘government by consent’ would be compromised if the wishes of
some individuals were overrun by the wishes of most individuals. He feared a democratic
state had the potential to create a ‘tyranny of the majority’.
Overview:
- Middle ground between classical liberalism and modern liberalism.
- Son of utilitarian philosopher James Mill.
- Was also a politician and campaign who served to develop Locke, Wollstonecraft and others
ideas.
- Key Work: On Liberty.
- Context: era of the industrial revolution.
Beliefs:
- Mill’s enduring idea, outlined in On Liberty (1859), was one which was later known as
‘negative freedom’. This argued that freedom mainly involved a absence of restraint. This
connected to Mill’s ‘harm principle’- which said that individual’s actions should be tolerated
by the state and others, except if they harmed others.
- Mill divided actions into ‘self-regarding’ and ‘other regarding’. The former involves religious
worship and robust expression of personal views, does not impinge on others, so should
therefore be tolerated. The latter involves violent or riotous behaviour, which ‘harms’ the
freedom of others in society, so should not be tolerated. The tolerance of diverse opinions
was very important as it ensured new ideas were exposed, and bad ideas put to rest with
debate.
- Mill’s importance lies in the fact that his ideas represented something more sophisticated
than in classical liberalism. He saw liberty as not just a ‘natural right’, but as the engine of
ongoing human development. As such, Mill’s human nature was never finished, there was
always room for improvement.
- Mill didn’t want to just liberate individuals as they were at present, instead he pondered
what individuals could become- a concept he termed ‘individuality’ and which has since
been referred to as developmental individualism. He famously stated ‘better to be Socrates
dissatisfied, than a pig satisfied’.
- Mill’s distinction between ‘individualism’ and ‘individuality’ would have crucial implications
for how he approached the issue of democracy. He was particularly concerned that the
timeless liberal principle of ‘government by consent’ would be compromised if the wishes of
some individuals were overrun by the wishes of most individuals. He feared a democratic
state had the potential to create a ‘tyranny of the majority’.
