Mill's On Liberty: Critical Essays

When John Stuart Mill published On Liberty in 1859, he was then but the latest in a very long line of liberal theorists that stretched back to Plato and continued intermittently for the next two millennia. These theorists as did Mill attempted to ascertain what if any was that fine line between the rights of the individual to live unimpeded from the caprices of a ruling state and the duty of that state to maintain the civil order necessary for those rights to exist. That we today still have not defined this line is a testimony to the never ending struggle of thinkers like Mill to present arguments of which each succeeding generation must be made aware. Those who read On Liberty tend to view it as the natural heir to the principles of Jeremy Bentham, the Utilitarian of the previous generation who convinced James Mill, John's father, to become his ardent disciple. Even before John Stuart Mill was born, his father and Bentham had determined that he was to be the next voice of unrestrained liberalism. To accomplish this, the father force fed his son a classical instruction that was so intense and encompassing that the little John was taught Latin and Greek while still a toddler. In addition to a curriculum that would have staggered most university students, the boy learned the basics of liberal Utilitarianism from a father who saw his son as a conduit from which he could convert a world that was decidedly un-liberal. The result of this years long exposure to harsh academia was predictably catastrophic. Young John eventually suffered a mental breakdown and later called a halt to this instruction. Eventually, he regained his emotional equilibrium and sought to return to a more traditional means of education. Ironically, when he was fifteen, he began to study Bentham from choice not compulsion. Bentham had been a proponent of Utilitarianism, which states that human beings have a need to maximize the happiness of the greatest number. Further, Bentham concluded, that individuals rather than the ruling state were the ones best equipped for that task. The young Mill founded the Utilitarian Society, from which he began his initial attempts to propagandize Bentham's basic tenets. In 1824, he launched the Westminster Review, a quarterly journal as yet another forum to spread Bentham's ideas. For the next three decades Mill relentlessly urged a series of opinions that moderns now hold to be the very cornerstones of liberal ideology: representative government, unrestrained flows of ideas, universal suffrage, and advocacy of women's rights. Mill was not content to accept the totality of Bentham's version of Utilitarianism as presented to him. More than a few acquaintances pointed out that an undiluted stream of Bentham would result in nothing less than the construction of a non-human emotionless "logic-chopper." In the world of Bentham there was no place for passion and emotion. Since Mill had suffered a breakdown for that very

The editor's introduction serves as an excellent assistant to newcomers like myself to political and ethical philosophy. A 55 pages introduction is divided into four sections. The first goes briefly into the historical account of Mill's life and how it has shaped his political views. The second introduces Mill's version of Bentham's Utilitarianism. The third sections reviews the five chapters of the book, briefly describing each's main topics. The best part is the last, introducing crtical issues that has been discussed and debated in the book. Various views of Aristotle, Hart, Dworkin and, Devlin are presented versus that of Mill's. This specifically strengthens your understanding of the issues presented and paves the way for an enjoyable reading adventure... sherif

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 his 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 pai

I am now older and I want to read and re-read materials I loved when I was a college student. I would love to "see" more talking book materials of "classic" philosophy as well as historical writings in CD formats.

Excellent novel. You gotta buy it!