JS Mill

Liberty and
Individualism
BLOCK IV
JOHAN STUART MILL
97
BLOCK IV
Johan Stuart Mill INTRODUCTION
This block discusses political philosophy of J S Mill whose ideas were based on
classical liberalism arguing for respect and protection of individual rights. Mill’s
philosophy was a modified version of the utilitarian theory as he also favoured
quality of pleasure experienced by human beings. Mill argued that utility cannot
be measured merely in quantity, but in quality too. Mill combined the
enlightenment reason with psychological and historical insights of romanticism.
Mill thought that the enlightenment philosophers had reduced humanity to
something much simpler than it was and it was also devoid of any emotion.
He added a qualitative dimension to human happiness and injected enlightenment
ideas with character and culture. Mill believed strongly that suffrage rights for
women would allow for the eventual addressing of more specific areas of
inequality including female employment rights, property rights or marital
equality. He was the first to apply public principles of justice and equality to the
private realm of the family. Mill stated that equality within the family would lead
to a better and responsible society. He believed that utilitarian goals could be
achieved only with state developing a good society, and facilitating promotion of
liberal values.
98
UNIT 7 LIBERTY AND INDIVIDUALISM*
Liberty and
Individualism
Structure
7.0 Objectives
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Mill’s Utilitarianism – A Precursor to the Idea of Individualism
7.3 Mill’s Views on Individualism
7.4 Mill’s Idea of Freedom and Defence of Liberty
7.5 Critical Analysis
7.6 Let Us Sum Up
7.7 References
7.8 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises
7.0 OBJECTIVES
The aim of this unit is to familiarize the readers with the writings and thoughts of
J.S. Mill on liberty and his views on individualism. After studying this unit, you
should be able to:
 Understand J.S. Mill’s differences with Jeremy Bentham on Utilitarianism

 Explain J.S. Mill’s thoughts on individualism
 Know J.S. Mill’s views on liberty
 Critically analyze J.S. Mill’s views
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The question of individualism and human liberty has always remained at the
forefront of political thinking ever since the advent of humanist thought in early
centuries that reached its zenith in the era of enlightenment from seventeenth
century onwards. During this period, many political philosophers contributed their
share of thought in enlarging the canvas of literature on individualism and liberty,
but J.S. Mill’s views on individualism and liberty expressed in his famous work
On Liberty remains a contribution of interminable importance. Any contemporary
political debate on the question of individual liberty with its connection to the
larger society is incomplete without Mill. It is especially relevant in the present
*
Dr. Apra Vaidya, Assistant Professor (Adjunct Faculty), Ambedkar University Delhi
99
BLOCK IV atmosphere of increased global and the national level of state surveillance in the
Johan Stuart Mill
pretext of providing security which has not only led to redefining the very scope
of political values like nationalism and democracy, but more importantly has
larger implications on basic tenets of individualism and human liberty.
Mill’s defence of individualism and liberty is an embodiment of his form of

Utilitarianism. Mill, without withdrawing himself completely from his mentor
Jeremy Bentham’s version of utilitarianism sought its revision in ways which are
instrumental in understanding the very idea and importance of individualism in its
totality. His emphasis upon the need to assess the idea of happiness both in
quantitative and qualitative is one of his remarkable contributions in political
thought.
Thus, the following unit will shed light on Mill’s views of individualism and his
defence of individual liberty in the sphere of expression and action by drawing
upon his utilitarian philosophy in difference with Bentham’s version of
utilitarianism.
7.2 MILL’S UTILITARIANISM – A PRECURSOR TO

THE IDEA OF INDIVIDUALISM
Individualism and human liberty are two such values which are not only cardinal
to the survival of democracy as an institution, but are significantly central for a
vibrant society to flourish in terms of varying individual talents and skills. In
view of such usefulness, Mill’s understanding of individualism becomes
imperative which flows from his version of utilitarianism. Mill’s utilitarian
philosophy has been viewed as a revision of Jeremy Bentham’s moral philosophy
- “greatest happiness of the greatest number.” According to this philosophy,
actions must be evaluated based upon their consequences. However, while
adhering to this principle, Bentham did not just refer to the usefulness of the
things or actions, but to the extent to which these things or actions promote the
general happiness. In doing so, Bentham exclusively equated the concept of
happiness with pleasure as he described in his celebrated work An Introduction to
the Principles of Morals and Legislation which was published in 1789, “nature
has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and
pleasure.” He further mentioned, “Take away all pleasures and all pain and you
have no desire and without a desire there can be no action.” This perception of
human nature as essentially hedonistic limits Bentham in recognizing the fact that
there are not only external but also internal sanctions that constraint the
individuals in promoting general happiness, an implication of which essentially
falls upon his version of liberty that is often referred to as ‘negative’ in nature –
meaning freedom from external constraints and compulsion.
J.S. Mill’s own thinking and writings were deeply coloured in Bentham’s
philosophy. He was of the opinion that Bentham had “remarkable endowments for
100
philosophy”as well as amazing abilities at drawing correct conclusions from
premises, but disagreed with his general conception of human nature as Liberty and
Individualism
essentially hedonist, which furnished Bentham with an unusually limited number
of premises. Mill while devising his own perspective retained Bentham’s method
and principle, but hoped to enlarge the number of premises from which human
nature was to be assessed. Without withdrawing himself from the Benthamite
belief that humans were primarily (if not entirely) motivated by pursuit of
pleasure and avoidance of pain, Mill took a more nuanced view of human nature.
He called Bentham’s philosophy as one-sided and attributed it to his lack of
experience, imaginations and emotions. According to Mill, the chief problem with
Bentham’s philosophy was that it neglected the individual character. Hence, Mill
laid stress on the cultivation of feelings and imagination as a part of good life. He
held poetry, drama, painting, and music as essential ingredients, both for
happiness and formation of human character. In short, Mill made happiness and
the dignity of man and not the principle of pleasure as the chief end of life. He
defined happiness to mean perfection of human nature, cultivation of moral
virtues and lofty aspirations, total control over one’s appetites and desires,
recognition of individual and collective interests.
The basic premise of utilitarianism was retained by Mill but he distinguished

between higher and lower pleasures and that greater pleasure meant an increase
not merely in the quantity, but also in the quality of goods enjoyed. In his book on
Utilitarianism which was published in 1863, he mentioned, “It is better to be a
human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied
than a fool satisfied. And if the fool,or the pig, are ofa different opinion, it is
because they only know their own side of question.”
Moreover, he maintained that human beings were capable of moral pleasures as

well as intellectual which were superior to the physical ones that they shared with
animals. Mill pointed out that every human action had three aspects- First, the
moral aspect of right and wrong; second, the aesthetic aspect (related to beauty)
and third, the sympathetic aspect (loveable-ness).The first, moral aspect is that of
approve or disapprove; the second, aesthetic addressed to admire or despise; and
according to the third aspect sympathetic,it enabled one to love, pity or dislike.
He regarded individual’s self-development and diversity as the ultimate ends, as

important components of human happiness and he also considered it as the
principle ingredient of individual as well as social progress. Mill endeavoured to
reconcile the interest of the individual and the society. He spoke of nobility of
character, a trait that was closely related to altruism, meaning that people did what
was good for society, rather than for themselves. The pleasure they derived from
doing good for society might outweigh the ones that aimed at self-indulgence,
contributing to their happiness. According to Mill, pleasures could not be
measured objectively and hence for him, felicific calculus was absurd; and
judgement based on competent and wise was more crucial.
101
BLOCK IV
Johan Stuart Mill Check Your Progress Exercise 1
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your progress with the model answer given at the end of
the unit.
1. What impression of individualism can be drawn about from Mill’s revision of

utilitarianism?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
2. Mill pointed out that every human action had certain aspects. Explain.
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
3. Why is it important to consider the difference between Mill’s and Bentham’s

utilitarianism?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
7.3 MILL’S VIEWS ON INDIVIDUALISM

Mill carefully outlined the principles upon which his ethical system was to be
based starting with ‘the principle of utility’ and expanding upon it until he arrives
at his political conclusions.
Mill’s idea of individualism is based on the principle of ethical hedonism which

though places his individualism in the binaries of pleasure and pain, yet is wider
in scope as compared to Bentham’s idea of “individualism” and “the greatest
happiness of the greatest number.” In Mill’s version of individualism, individuals
are arbiters of their own actions. By virtue of possessing reasoning faculty (which
102 is not present in other animate beings), they are elevated above wants and desires
of mere brutish beasts, as he said, “Human beings have faculties more elevated Liberty and
Individualism
than the animal appetites, and when once made conscious of them, do not regard
anything as happiness which does not include their gratification.” He denied the
possibility of any such philosophy which is purely hedonistic in a sense that it did
not assign pleasures of intellect, or the feelings and imagination, and of the moral
sentiments, a much higher value as pleasures than to those of mere sensations.
That is to say, men have the capability to experience higher degree of pleasure
like appreciating art, theatre, philosophy, poetry and so on and so forth which no
beast is capable of experiencing. This capability of human beings brings Mill’s
individualism in qualitative difference with those where individuals go about
seeking their own pleasure at the expense of others. Here, Mill meant that men do
find pleasures in the pleasures of others and thus other’s pleasure is as important
as one’s own pleasure.
For Mill, to act towards the betterment of the larger society, one’s attainment of
the captaincy of his destiny is a “pre-requisite” by which Mill indicated, “None
but a person of confirmed virtue is completely free.” Here, individualism finds
expression in pursuit of attaining mastery over ones habits, temptations and
desires to the extent that if even he yields to them, he is in the position of resisting
them.
Mill recognized the fact that individuals are diverse in their needs and capacities
for happiness. Since the person was the best judge of his own interests, therefore,
he must be given the conditions for the fuller development of his character. Such
diversity of individual characters is good in itself and other beings equal must be
encouraged for the larger good of the society. It is perhaps because of this reason
he was an ardent champion of liberty against the tyranny of majority of social
norms and political oppression and saw it as imperative to protect an individual’s
ability to act freely and just as passionately about the likelihood that government’s
interference in the lives of citizens will do more harm than good, regardless of its
intent.
Check Your Progress Exercise 2

the unit.
1. Explain Mill’s take on Individualism.

…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
103
BLOCK IV
Johan Stuart Mill 7.4 MILL’S IDEA OF FREEDOM AND DEFENCE OF
LIBERTY
Mill’s idea of freedom and his defence of liberty are conceptually linked to his
views on individualism. One can easily make out about his ideas on individualism
from the way in which he defined freedom. To Mill, freedom meant individual’s
ability to direct formation of one’s character and not some metaphysical quality of
mind that is distinct and separate. He believed that it is the feeling of directing
one’s own life.
In his famous work On Liberty, Mill stated the principle that governed the actions
of society and individuals in way of compulsion and control.“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 … 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...,” mentioned by
him.According to Mill, it is only in the case of self-preservation that an individual
can be coerced. Otherwise, individuals must be granted largest and greatest
amount of freedom because it is imperative for the pursuit of individual’s creative
impulses and energies and for self-development. Such was the importance of
individual freedom for Mill that he even went to the extent of mentioning that if
there was a clash between the opinion of the individual and that of community, it
was the individual who was the ultimate judge, unless the community could
convince him without resorting to threat and coercion. “The only part of the
conduct of anyone, for which is amenable to society, is that which concerns
others. In part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right,
absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign,”
he stated. Here in this quote, Mill laid the grounds for justifiable interference in
the liberty of the individual. Any activity that pertained to the individual alone
represented the space over which no coercive interference, either from the
government or from other people, was permissible. The realm which pertained to
the society or public was the space in which coercion could be used (hard or soft)
to make the individual conform to some standard or conduct. This is the
distinction of self-regarding and other’s regarding sphere of human actions.
Mill essentially defended the liberty of action in self-regarding sphere of action

because of his belief that coercion could be detrimental to self-development. He
listed four reasons in this context.
1. Evils of coercion far outweighed the good achieved.

2. Individuals were so diverse in their needs, and capacities for happiness
that coercion would be futile. Since the person was the best judge of his
own interests, therefore, he had the information and the incentive to
achieve them.
3. Since diversity was in itself good, other things being equal, it should be
104 encouraged.
4. Freedom was the most important requirement in the life of a rational Liberty and
Individualism
person. He contended that positive liberty i.e. autonomy and self-mastery,
were inherently desirable and it was possible if individuals were allowed
to develop their own talents or invent their own lifestyles i.e. great deal of
negative liberty.
In addition to this liberty of action in sphere of self-regarding actions, Mill also

argued for the freedom of speech as extremely significant for encouraging fuller
development of the individual’s own character as well as well for social utility.
One of his famous quotes in On Liberty, Mill brought forth the most important
aspect of his views on liberty. He mentioned,“If all mankind minus one were of
one 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.” According
to him, freedom of speech and expression is not just a right of individual to
express an opinion but also includes the right of individuals to hear opinions
expressed. Mill enumerates four reasons in the favour of freedom of expression-
1. If an opinion is suppressed as against the prevailing notion and the

suppressed opinion is right, then humankind is deprived of its benefit.
And, even if it is the prevailing notion that is right, suppression of the
‘wrongs’ deprives humankind of the opportunity to reinforce what is right.
Therefore, freedom of expression is required to facilitate the opinions, true
or false, that are against the prevailing notions in society
2. In the field of social and political belief, truth rather than being of one
view or the other emerges from the conflict of two or more opposing
views. It is only freedom of expression that facilitates the airing out of
several views.
3. Freedom of expression can throw up right views as well as wrong. But
even views that are wrong or false should not be suppressed as they may
contain elements of truth. If freedom of expression is not exercised, such
“elements of truth” may be lost to humankind.
4. Even prevailing views that are true and right need opposition to reinforce
their truth and to prevent themselves from being frozen into inert clichés.
Indeed, it is only by being exposed to contradictions that views become
reliable guides for actions.
According to Mill, it is the clash of views facilitated by freedom of expression

that provides the intellectual impetus for thought, discussion and progress. He was
convinced that without such freedom society finds itself enfeebled by dogma.
Beliefs held by such society degenerate into prejudices and opinions lack a
rational foundation.
Since Mill valued each and every individual opinion be it wrong or right, he saw
no difference in suppression of majority opinion by one or suppression of an
individual opinion by majority as in both the cases, according to Mill, society
would be devoid of something valuable. 105
BLOCK IV
the unit.
1. What is Mill’s defence of the right to individuality in self-regarding sphere of

actions?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
2. Explain Mill’s views on freedom of speech and expression.

…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
3. Discuss Mill’s defence of Individual freedom and individuality.

…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
7.5 CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Mill’s individualism and his defence of liberty drawn from his revised utilitarian
philosophy of Jeremy Bentham is seemingly broader in its scope and usefulness,
yet it is not free from critical purview. The major criticism leveled against his
defence of liberty comes from Sir Earnest Barker. Sir Ernest Barker regarded
Mill as a prophet of empty liberty and abstract individual because of the absolutist
statements made by Mill on liberty like right of one individual against the rest.
Mill, he writes,“separated the inseparable.” The conduct of any person was a
single whole and there could be nothing in it that concerns himself and did not
concern others. Every action of a person affects others and the demarcation
between self-regarding and other’s regarding spheres of action did not hold good.
106
Liberty and
7.6 LET US SUM UP Individualism
To sum up, Mill's views on utilitiarianism have been a precursor to the idea of
individualism. Mill endorsed the Benthamite principle of the greatest happiness of
the greatest number, but at the same time he made a significant departure from the
Benthamite assumption by arguing that this principle could be defended if one
distinguished happiness from pleasure. He retained the basic premise of
utilitarianism, but distinguished between higher and lower pleasures. With regard
to this, Mill argued that utility cannot be measured merely in quantity but in
quality too. Mill mentioned that every human action had certain aspects and in
this context, he stated, the moral aspect of right and wrong; the aesthetic aspect
(related to beauty) and third, the sympathetic aspect (loveable-ness). In addition,
individual's self-development is one of the major components of happiness and
for the overall social progress. Also, Mill valued each and every individual’s
opinion, be it wrong or right, he saw no difference in suppression of majority
opinion by one or suppression of an individual opinion by majority, as in both the
cases, Mill believed that the society would be devoid of something valuable.

the unit.
1. Give a critical account of Mill’s individualism and defence of liberty.
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
7.7 REFERENCES
 Bhargava, Rajeev and Acharya, Ashok (ed.) (2008).Political Theory: An
Introduction. UP: Pearson.
 Collini, Stefan (ed.). (1989). On Liberty and Other Writings. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.
 Cowling, M. (1963).Mill and Liberalism.Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
 Gray, J. (1983). Mill on Liberty: A Defence. London: Routledge.
 Gauba, O.P. (2019). Western Political Thought, 4th Edition. New Delhi:
National Paperbacks.
107
BLOCK IV
Johan Stuart Mill
 Heydt, Colin. John Stuart Mill (1806—1873).Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. URL: https://iep.utm.edu/milljs/.
 Macleod, Christopher. John Stuart Mill. Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/.
 Mill, John Stuart (1993). Utilitarianism. New York: Bantum Classics.
 Mukherjee, Subrata and Ramawsamy, Sushila. (2011). A History of

Political Thought: Plato to Marx. New Delhi: PHILearning Pvt. Ltd.
 Riley, Jonathan (1998). Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Mill on

Liberty. London: Routledge.
7.8 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

EXERCISES
1. Your answer should highlight the following points:
 Mill’s views about higher and lower pleasures
 Pleasure meant an increase not merely in the quantity but also in the
quality of good enjoyed.

 First, the moral aspect; second, the aesthetic aspect; and third, the
sympathetic aspect.

 Mill's version of utilitarianism is central to his idea of individualism and
liberty.
 Mill's differentiation between lower and higher pleasures widens the scope
of individuality.

 Individuals are arbiters of their own actions
 Men have the capability to experience higher degree of pleasure like
appreciating art, philosophy.
 For Mill, other’s pleasure is as important as one’s own pleasure.

108
 Mill believed coercion could be detrimental to self-development Liberty and
Individualism
 List the reasons
 Importance of positive liberty

 Freedom of speech and expression also includes the right of
individuals to hear opinions expressed.
 Liberty is needed for development of the individual’s own character.
 It is needed for social utility.
 Reasons in favour of freedom of expression

 In self-preservation, an individual can be coerced.
 Individuals must be granted largest and greatest amount of freedom.

 Sir Ernest Barker views on Mill’s perspective
109
BLOCK IV
Johan Stuart Mill
UNIT 8 SUFFRAGE AND THE RIGHTS OF
WOMEN*
Structure
8.0 Objectives
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Mill’s Writings and ‘The Subjection of Women’ (1869)
8.3 Mill on Importance of Individual Liberty
8.4 Rights of Women and Gender Equality
8.5 Political Rights and Women’s Suffrage
8.6 Critical Analysis
8.7 Let Us Sum Up
8.8 References
8.0 OBJECTIVES
In this unit, we study about J S Mill as a feminist philosopher and his views on
subjection of women by men in a society. We will attempt to examine Mill’s
philosophical arguments for gender equality and equal political rights for women
as partners in any society. The aim of this unit is to familiarise you with the ideas
of suffrage and women’s rights and what Mill says about the liberty and political
rights of women and its usefulness.
After studying this unit, you should be able to discuss:
 Mill’s views on subjection of women in a society

 Relation between Mill’s idea of individual liberty and equal rights for
women
 Mill’s arguments for demanding women’s suffrage
8.1 INTRODUCTION
J.S. Mill's writings on women and the family are central to contemporary
philosophical debates about how liberalism should best conceptualize and work
*
Dr Priya S. Mital, HOD, Department of Political Science, Bhavan’s H.S. College, Mumbai
110
towards justice. Mill's landmark work titled The Subjection of Women made clear Suffrage and
the Rights of
that a decent liberal conception of justice implied equal justice for women as well Women
as men. Mill's views on women's rights were public knowledge in his own day
and have continued to be studied exhaustively. J S Mill served as a Member of
Parliament from 1865 to 1868, as a radical member from Westminster, during
which he advocated three main reforms: suffrage for women, the interests of
labourers, and land reform in Ireland. The publication in 1869 of Mill's The
Subjection of Women gave rise to philosophical and political responses beyond
Western Europe on the relationship between westernization and women's rights in
developing, colonial, and post-colonial countries.
In arguing for women to enjoy the same freedoms as men—the freedom to vote,
to attend university, to go to work, to do what they willed with their earnings—
Mill linked up the idea of freedom to other ideas important to him, that is, the
ideas of equality, democracy and utility. He believed that only when women
accessed the same privileges as men, would democracy be strengthened. Mill was
not saying that the democratic project was incomplete because half the population
was not being allowed to participate in the project of self-government. Rather, his
claim was that without the reform of the patriarchal family, even the men would
not know how to be truly democratic. Democracy in the political and public
sphere would remain faulty, unless democratic citizens were brought up and
created in egalitarian families. In his famous work ‘The Subjection of Women’,
Mill declares that equality, liberty and democracy are bound up together.
8.2 MILL’S WRITINGS AND ‘THE SUBJECTION OF

WOMEN’ (1869)
John Stuart Mill (1806–873) was the most influential political thinker of the
nineteenth century. Mill was born in 1806, in London, as the oldest son of the
Scottish historian and philosopher, James Mill. From a very early age, Mill began
studying logic and mathematics, and soon mastered the political economy of
Smith and Ricardo. By the time he was 10 years old, he had read many of Plato’s
dialogues, logic and history. He was familiar with the writings of Euripides,
Homer, Polybius, Sophocles and Thucydides. All of Mill’s education was
supervised by his father and his father’s philosopher friend, Jeremy Bentham, who
had a major influence on his philosophical thought. Under Bentham’s influence
Mill became a utilitarian philosopher. Mill neither went to a regular school and
nor to a university, but he was so well read that, while still in his teens, he began
contributing articles to the Westminster Review, the journal of the Philosophic
Radicals. In 1827, he began working for the British East India Company and
continued to work for the company for three decades. It was during these years
that he wrote many of his famous works.
In 1851, Mill married his long time companion Harriet Taylor. Unfortunately, she
died not long after their marriage, in 1858. Mill acknowledged her influence on
his writings in several places. Mill in the initial stages of the women's 111
BLOCK IV emancipation movement was influenced greatly by his spouse Harriet Taylor.
Johan Stuart Mill
The Westminster Review essay, "Enfranchisement of Women," (1851) was more
the work of his wife Harriet Taylor than of J S Mill. Mill was a prolific writer,
producing work in several disciplines. His work A System of Logic, which he
wrote in 1843, was followed by Principles of Political Economy in 1848. In 1859,
he wrote On Liberty. In 1861, he wrote Considerations on Representative
Government followed by Utilitarianism in 1863. The Subjection of Women was
published in 1869, while Autobiography and Three Essays on Religion were
published posthumously in 1873 and in 1874, respectively. He made important
contributions to every aspect of political theory. His System of Logic (1843) tried
to elucidate a coherent philosophy of politics. His essays On Liberty (1859) and
The Subjection of Women (1869) were classic elaborations of liberal thought on
important issues like law, rights and liberty. From 1865 to 1868, Mill as a
member of the British Parliament sought to push through legislation granting
women’s suffrage and worker’s rights. From the training that John Stuart received
at home, he was convinced that nurture more than nature played a crucial role in
the formation of character. It also assured him of the importance of education and
the role it could play in transforming human nature and society.
The clearest expression of Mill's views on women appears in his work The
Subjection of Women (1869). In The Subjection of Women, John Stuart Mill sets
forth what has often been viewed as a progressive theory espousing equality for
women in society. Mill argues that social and legal conditions which restrict the
liberty of women serve as one of the "chief hindrances to human improvement."
Mill likens the position of women in society and particularly their position in the
marital relationship in the nineteenth century to that of slaves subject to the will of
their masters. It means that Mill argues that marriage is the legal equivalent of
slavery. Mill argues that numerous benefits will follow from allowing women the
liberty to control their own destiny and the freedom to hold an equal position in
society. Among these benefits are: improved conditions for women in marital
relationships so that they are no longer legally subject to the will of a cruel
husband but are, instead, equal partners in the marriage; the removal of the 'self
worship' instilled in men who believe they are better than women merely because
of their gender and not for any substantive reason; the creation of the family as a
model of the "virtues of freedom"; and most importantly, the promotion of human
progress and the greatest happiness for all through the addition to society of new
and diverse intellectual forces which will result from improved and equal
education and opportunities for women.' Mill argues that the subjection of women
has been justified by the claim that is natural for men to dominate women.
Women, so the claim goes, are naturally inferior to men. Mill, on the other hand,
argues that it is impossible to know the true nature of women. Mill argues that
women's subordinate position in society is a remnant of the past practice of the
rule of the physically strong over the weak. The practice of men dominating
women has since become customary and has been mistaken as the "natural" order.
Women are believed to be naturally inferior because of the unquestioning
112 acceptance of this order and a resulting socialization process which creates
women who will act in such a way to fill these inferior positions. Mill argues that Suffrage and
the Rights of
we cannot claim to know the true nature of women based on their behaviour Women
because this behaviour is a product of social forces that have conditioned women
to behave in a certain way and have thus hidden and suppressed their true natural
inclinations. How should we understand John Stuart Mill's feminism? The
dominant answer is that Mill was a liberal and a feminist, invested primarily in
equality of opportunity and the removal of barriers to the public realm for women,
and so he must be a liberal feminist.

the unit.
1. Describe about the major influences on Mill and his philosophy.
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
2. Write a note highlighting the views of Mill in ‘The Subjection of Women’.

…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
8.3 MILL ON IMPORTANCE OF INDIVIDUAL

LIBERTY
Mill’s emphasis on individual liberty is consistent with his insistence, almost
unique in the canon of Western political thought, that women must also enjoy the
right to individual liberty. Why does Mill hold the value of liberty so dear? Why
is it so important to him that the liberty of individuals, including that of women,
be protected? Mill believed that when individuals are free to make their own
choices, they use many of their faculties. He observed that the human faculties of
perception, judgement, discriminative feeling, mental activity, and even moral
preference, are exercised in only making a choice. Individuals, who act in a
certain fashion only because they have been told to do so, do not develop any of
these faculties. Mill argued that improvement of the mental and moral faculties of
individuals, for both men and women will take place, when they exercise three
specific liberties: the liberty of thought and expression, including the liberty of
113
speaking and publishing; the liberty of action and the liberty of association. The
BLOCK IV point of liberty then seems to be the ‘improvement’ of the ‘moral and mental
Johan Stuart Mill
powers’ of human beings.
When it comes to liberty of action, Mill asserted that ‘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. 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’. Mill stated that every individual must be
allowed a say in controlling the government and thus given an opportunity to
protect his or her interests. It is on this basis that Mill demanded that women be
given the right to vote. He advocated that barring those who were illiterate, did
not pay taxes or were on parish relief, everyone be allowed to vote.
‘The Subjection of Women’ begins with the revolutionary statement that ‘the
principle which regulates the existing social relations between the two sexes—the
legal subordination of one sex to the other—is wrong in itself, and one of the
chief hindrances to human improvement...it ought to be replaced by a principle of
perfect equality’. What Mill found paradoxical was that in the modern age, when
the principles of liberty and equality were being espoused, these rights were being
denied to women. No one believed in slavery anymore, yet women were
sometimes treated worse than slaves. Mill wanted to explain this resistance to
women’s equality in the context of the general acceptance of the principles of
equality and liberty.
Mill argued all men had an interest in women’s subordination. This is what made
women’s subordination so difficult to resist. Men wanted to hold on to it because
they benefited from it, as they could control the labour and resources of another
human being. Attacking every defence of women’s inequality, Mill went on, in
The Subjection of Women, to marshal further arguments for why the oppression of
women should be resisted. Mill described how the society would benefit if
women were to be granted equal rights, as follows:
1. The first advantage would be that the family would no longer be ‘a school
of despotism’. According to Mill, the patriarchal family compels all its
members to live in hierarchical relationships, since all power is
concentrated in the hands of the male members. The women, children and
servants do not have any freedom and have to obey the patriarch.
Individuals who live in such families cannot be good democratic citizens
because they do not know how to treat another citizen as an equal. For
women to be free, they must enjoy an equal legal status with men, and
have an equal access to education and employment. In the interests of
democratic citizenship then, it was necessary to obtain equality for women
in the family.
2. Mill pointed out that another advantage of women’s equality would be the
114 ‘doubling of the mass of mental faculties’ available to society. Society
would benefit not only because there would be more doctors, engineers,
teachers and scientists, but men in the professions would also perform Suffrage and
the Rights of
better, because of competition from their female counterparts. Mill Women
describes this benefit as the benefit of the stimulus that would be given to
the intellect of men by the competition.
3. Thirdly, Mill observed that women enjoying equality would have a better
influence on mankind. According to Mill ‘under relations of
subordination, women have to resort to perverse means to assert their will.
If women are treated equally, they will no longer need to do this’.
4. Finally, Mill argued, by giving women equal rights, their happiness would
be increased manifold and this would satisfy the utilitarian principle of the
greatest happiness of the greatest number.
Equality as a legal right between the sexes was Mill’s main concern. Mill’s ‘The
Subjection of Women’ is considered as one of the first essays to discuss the
inequality of women as a political problem and to consider its sources and
solutions in a scholarly manner. It condemns the legal inferiority of women in
Victorian England. He criticised the lack of freedom of choice for women, and
contended that equality should be the ordering principle of societal and personal
relationships.

the unit.
1. How will society benefit by granting equal rights to women?

…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
8.4 RIGHTS OF WOMEN AND GENDER EQUALITY

Mill pointed out that opposition to sexual equality was not based on reason. For
Mill, equality was a genuine moral sentiment that ought to govern all
relationships. Such a sentiment could be instilled and nurtured within a family
that had been justly constituted. Mill acknowledged the family as the real school
for learning the virtues of freedom and liberation, yet it was here that sentiments
of injustice, inequality and despotism were taught. A just family would nurture
feelings of sympathy, equality and love, rather than subordination and command.
Mill desired a transformation of the family to suit the temperament and spirit of
the modern age, namely the spirit of equality and justice, and in the process bring
about a moral regeneration of humankind. Mill believed that the relationship
between a man and a woman in marriage should be based on mutual respect and 115
BLOCK IV mutual love, giving due regard to one another’s rights. This would make them
Johan Stuart Mill
self-reliant and self-sufficient. Mill stated that ‘unless the equal and just worth of
every human being was recognized, he could not enjoy equal rights nor realize his
full potential’. A life of rational freedom devoted to the release of their full
creative potential was as much a requirement for men as for women’.
Mill's commitment to equalizing power relations between men and women led
him to argue that justice was not possible without restructuring the family and
transforming conventional gender roles. Mill argued that men should not be
trusted with absolute power. Such absolute power within the family and marriage
only led to brutalization of women. Mill defended the right of individual women
who wanted the opportunity to choose a life other than that of motherhood and
marriage. He did believe that most women would not make that choice, but he
certainly did not want to force women into marriage by not offering them
alternatives. According to him, ‘the subjection of women to men being a universal
custom, any departure from it quite naturally appears unnatural’. He believed that
ordinary men and women were slaves to custom, and it was necessary to remove
the legal barriers which restricted women’s opportunities.
Mill pointed out that if women were allowed to exercise their faculties freely and
fully, the real beneficiary would be society, for it would be able to draw from a
larger pool of mental resources. If women were properly educated it would not
only brighten their lives but also enhance society in general. He understood the
important point that equal opportunities in education meant equal opportunities in
employment. Like Wollstonecraft and Margaret Fuller, Mill articulated and
defended the right of women to be considered as free rational beings capable of
choosing the life they would like to lead for themselves, rather than being dictated
by what society thought they should be or do. Mill believed that women were as
bright and gifted as men, and once granted the same ‘eagerness for fame’, women
would achieve the same success. Moreover, a judgement regarding capacities and
talent in women could be made only after generations of women benefited from
equal opportunities for education and employment.
Mill's argument for gender equality, his critics maintain might have been radical
for its time. Much of the debate about Mill's feminism hangs on the role of the
state in effecting change. Mill defined a limited role for the state in propelling
change. Mill's critics focus on his minimal legal prescriptions to ensure women's
equality, arguing that this shows he had largely indifferent views regarding social
and moral life. Mill also pleaded for women’s political rights to vote and to
participate in government as administrators and as rulers. Mill's supporters,
pointing to his strong commitments to equality and how much he expected gender
roles and the family to change, usually assume the state would play a key part in
bringing about this change.

116 Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your progress with the model answer given at the end of Suffrage and
the Rights of
the unit. Women
1. What reasons does Mill give for demanding gender equality for women?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
……………………………………………………………………………...…
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
8.5 POLITICAL RIGHTS AND WOMEN’S

SUFFRAGE
All contemporary discourse on the issue of civil and political rights of women
dates back to J. S. Mill's ‘On Liberty’. Political rights and liberties cannot be
thought of in terms of specific laws and statutes. Rather, they are ideologies that
one believes ought to be valued and respected. Mill tried to reconcile the principle
of political equality with individual liberty. He accepted that all citizens,
regardless of their status were equal and that only popular sovereignty could give
legitimacy to the government. Democracy was good because it made people
happier and better. In the Representative Government, Mill commented that
difference of sex could not be the basis of political rights. Citing examples like
Joan of Arc, Elizabeth and Margaret of Austria, he argued that these women had
proved that women were as competent as men to participate and manage political
offices. He desired that the subjection of women be ended not merely by law
alone, but by education, opinion, habits, and finally a change in the family life
itself. Mill believed that through the rights of citizenship, an individual became a
social person and acquired both political freedom and responsibility. It was for
this concern with the public realm that Mill defended women’s civil and political
rights. In granting the right to vote, Mill hoped that women would be able to bring
about legislation to remedy their numerous problems, such as, domestic violence
etc. He objected to women being prevented by law to compete and contribute to
society.
Women's suffrage refers to the right of women to participate in democratic

processes through voting on the same basis as men. In the medieval and early
modern periods in Europe, the right to vote was severely limited for all people by
factors such as age, ownership of property, and gender. Mill looked upon equal
voting rights, universal suffrage, democracy and liberty as conditionally good.
They had to be conferred only on those who had the character for self-control, and
the ability and interest in using them for the public good. Mill argued that the
policy of a government in franchise reform should be to make participation in
political rights the reward for mental improvement.
117
BLOCK IV Mill believed that citizens developed intellectual qualities of reason and
Johan Stuart Mill
judgement only through political participation. “Civil participation enhances
autonomy and altruism: autonomy from self-government; altruism from judging
the interests of the community”. He recommended compulsory elementary
education, for that would make individual citizens wise, competent and
independent judges. In, On Liberty Mill recommended education to be established
and controlled by the state. Mill could perceive clearly that the problems women
faced were not merely those of misconception or false social notions, but of
systematic domination, which was why he constantly used the language of justice,
freedom and slavery to improve their lot.
J.S. Mill reiterated a similar sentiment like his mentor Jeremy Bentham with
regard to his views about the rights and status of women. Bentham believed that
education and suffrage would enable a woman to be a morally autonomous person
and a politically enlightened citizen. Bentham argued for women’s right to vote
and the right to participate as equals in the government. Bentham contended that
women had equal claims to happiness as men, if not more. For Bentham, the
question of autonomy—suffrage and divorce are two important issues that have
an intimate link with women’s legal personality. The two belonged to the public
and private spheres respectively of the individual, and were based on the premise
that women were aware of their interests and the means to safeguard them.
Bentham further claimed that the right to vote and the right to seek a divorce
guaranteed and secured women’s interests independent of men. Bentham favoured
women’s suffrage, but in Constitutional Code he realized that though there was
nothing wrong with women’s suffrage, the time was not ripe for it. His reluctance
was not because women lacked the capacity and rationality to vote, but because
men would oppose it strongly. Finally, Bentham rejected the idea of women’s
enfranchisement and participation in government on the grounds that men were
immature and would refuse to allow women amidst them. This had nothing to do
with the fact that women lacked either talent or ability. Bentham shelved his
initial demand for enfranchisement of women and their political representation on
the grounds of principle and practice. In practical terms, as pointed out, he
realized that society was not yet receptive to his radical demand. In principle, he
too believed that the home was the natural domain for the woman. Nevertheless,
Bentham argues that if women are to have a say in the passage of legislation
affecting their happiness, it follows, that they must have a hand in electing
legislators. Their enfranchisement is consistent with the Utilitarian’s greatest-
happiness principle.
The campaigns to secure women's right to vote faced resistance from different
quarters. The reasons for this are many and varied. The most extreme resistance to
women's campaigns demanding the right to vote has come from those who
believe that women are constitutionally ill suited (by nature or by virtue of their
limited education) to form rational judgments or to bear the responsibility of
democratic decision making. Others have argued that while it might be reasonable
118 for women to vote in local or municipal elections, which typically deal with
housing, education, or the care of children, national elections are concerned with Suffrage and
the Rights of
matters of state, and in particular with war, which are not women's domain. Re- Women
sistance to women's suffrage has also come from political activists who believed
that women are inherently conservative, and thus that the extension of the
franchise to women would inhibit broader progressive social and political
reforms, or from those who argue that women's political authority would be
contrary to core religious or social values. Mill wanted to elevate the importance
of the family, as he believed that whoever runs the family has a central role in
sustaining the political virtues of equality and justice. Mill believed that
enfranchisement of women is thus justified in principle as well as in practice.
8.6 CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Mill was Eurocentric as he was willing to use different standards for judging
similar practices, particularly on an issue like gender equality. Mill championed
the cause of European, and in particular Victorian women, but felt that Asian
women were not ready for equality, individuality and liberty. If Mill’s vision was
one of men and women improving themselves, and thereby making their society
better by speaking out freely, acting freely and forming associations freely, then
some problems remain in his writings. In The Subjection of Women, for instance,
he claims that women choosing to marry are in effect choosing a career of taking
care of their husband and children, and there seems to be no place for these
women in the public sphere of associational life.
Many critics of Mill have also pointed out that his attempt to modify Benthamite
utilitarianism to accommodate his own emphasis on liberty ultimately failed.
Trying to link liberty with self-improvement, Mill had to introduce the distinction
between the quantity and quality of pleasures. Given this distinction, who was to
judge that a certain pleasure was qualitatively superior to another? The idea of
differential competence among individuals became the basis of Mill’s advocacy
of plural voting in politics. This meant, however, giving up one of the valuable
insights of utilitarianism: that each person had to be counted as of equal value.
Mill’s apparent defence of utilitarianism actually led him to reject some of its
essential tenets.
Mill’s The Subjection of Women (1869) continues to be cited as an authority by

leading feminist theorists of justice. Mills feminism turns on the role of the state
in effecting moral and political change in society. Mill's critics focus on his
minimal legal prescriptions, believing them to be insufficient for achieving justice
and equality in any meaningful sense. His supporters point to how much he
expected the rigidity of gender roles to weaken for the better, which, in their view,
suggests Mill envisioned a large role for the state in bringing about this change.
Both views overlook a central tenet in Mill's thought, which is that such shifts in
values would come about only when the conditions for progress were in place.
Although the state has an important role in creating requisite conditions, it could
not itself impose moral progress on its citizens. 119
BLOCK IV Mill's critics sometimes complained that he knew nothing about women. His
Johan Stuart Mill
approach to women's rights was highly abstract and intellectualized, based on
concepts of legal and political equality. Mill stated that many people, especially
women, did not seem to realize the power of the political process which "is by far
the greatest that it is possible to wield for human happiness." This was always
Mill's optimistic position on women's rights that once women had the franchise
their political power would be sufficient to remedy other problems. The
possession of political power, he was convinced, "is the only security against
every form of oppression" and would cause men to regard women with more
respect.
Social tyranny was exercised in subtle forms like customs, conventions and mass
opinion, which did not make an individual stop and think where and how one had
come to acquire these. Individuality, to Mill, was not mere non-conformism, but
signified the act of questioning, the right to choice. Mill believed that it was only
with moral and mental autonomy that there would be considerable variety of
thought and behaviour. Individuality, to Mill, meant the power or capacity for
critical enquiry and responsible thought. It meant self-development and the
expression of free will. He stressed absolute liberty of conscience, belief and
expression, for they were crucial to human progress.
Mill, unlike Bentham, believed that some forms of happiness were better than
others, which relegated the pleasure principle to second place, behind some sort of
notion of values. Mill’s version of utilitarianism holds that allowing people to
decide for themselves as much as possible increases the general happiness,
thereby arriving at a philosophy arguing in favour of liberty of thought, speech
and association. Mill as a utilitarian philosopher accepts that the greatest
happiness of the greatest number is the goal of sound social policy.

the unit.
1. What are the arguments extended by Mill for women’s suffrage?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
2. Give a critical account of Mill’s feminism.
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
120
Suffrage and
8.7 LET US SUM UP the Rights of
Women
Mill, the rationalist and the utilitarian, was also a philosopher of human liberation,
individuality, equality and fulfilment. Mill regarded improvement in the position
of women as a concern of the entire humankind and not one just restricted to
women. The Subjection of Women, therefore, made a strong claim for equal status
in three key areas: women’s right to vote, right to equal opportunities in
education, and employment. Mill wanted individuals to constantly better
themselves morally, mentally and materially. Mill’s ideal was improvement of the
individuals. According to him, individual liberty was instrumental in achieving
this ideal. Mill believed that individuals improving themselves would naturally
lead to a better and improved society. Mill’s work The Subjection of Women was
far ahead of its time and in its application of the principle of liberty to the position
of women. Mill in The Subjection of Women observed that after the fulfilment of
primary necessities, freedom is the first and strongest want of human nature. Mill
zealously advocated the liberty of women to promote development of a better
society, which he believed would then lead to greatest happiness of the greatest
number.
Mill believed strongly that winning suffrage rights for women would allow for the
eventual addressing of more specific areas of inequality including female
employment rights, property rights or marital equality. Mill was the first to apply
public principles of justice and equality to the private realm of the family. Mill
stated that equality within the family would lead to a better and responsible
society. He was convinced that a good society was one which consisted of happy
people, and happiness came out of self-reliance, rationality, tolerance, wide-
ranging interests and a compassionate temper. Mill’s thought and activism could
be distinguished from those of his predecessors within the liberal tradition,
because of his application of the principles of liberalism to the question of
women. For Mill, improving women’s position by giving them suffrage,
education and employment opportunities was a stepping stone to progress and
civility. Mill’s ideas not only greatly influenced intellectuals in England in the
19th century, but some of his theories—his methodological individualism, his
version of utilitarianism and his emphasis on liberty and democracy guide
philosophical debates, even today.
8.8 REFERENCES
 Burns, J.H. (ed.) (1991). The Cambridge History of Political Thought.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Coleman, J. (2000): A History of Political Thought, Oxford, Blackwell

Publishers.
 Collini, Stefan (ed.) (1989). On Liberty and Other Writings. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. 121
BLOCK IV
Johan Stuart Mill
 Davidson, W.L. (1957). Political Thought in England: The Utilitarians
from Bentham to Mill. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Donner, Wendy. (1991). The Liberal Self: John Stuart Mill’s Moral and
Political Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
 Gray, J. (1983). Mill on Feminism. London: Routledge.
 Gray, J. (1983). Mill on Liberty: A Defence. London:Routledge.
 Hayek, F.A. (ed.) (1951). John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor: Their
Correspondence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
 Jha, Shefali . (2018). Western Political Thought. Chennai: Pearson India

Education Services Pvt. Ltd
 Kelly, P (eds.), (2009): Political Thinkers: From Socrates to the Present,

2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Miliband, R.(1950). Mill on Bentham and Coleridge. London: Fontana.
 Miliband, R. (1976): Utilitarianism: On Liberty and Considerations on

Representative Government. London:Fontana.
 Mukherjee, S. and Ramawsamy.S. (2011). A History of Political Thought.

New Delhi: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.
 Ryan, A. (1970). The Philosophy of John Stuart Mill. London:

Macmillan.
 Skorupski, J. (1998). The Cambridge Companion to Mill. Cambridge:

 Tulloch, G. (1989): Mill and Sexual Equality. London: Blackwell.
 Vinod, M J and M Deshpande. (2013). Contemporary Political Theory.

New Delhi: PHI Learning Private Ltd.

EXERCISES
 Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarian philosophy
 Harriet Taylor’s influence - justice, equality for women
122 2. Your answer should highlight the following points:

 progressive theory supporting equality for women in society Suffrage and
the Rights of
 denial of liberty and equality acts as hindrances to human improvement Women
 improved conditions for women in marital relationships and family
 promotion of greatest happiness for all through education and equal
opportunities for women

 justice possible with restructuring the family
 doubling of the mass of mental faculties
 this would have a better influence on mankind
 satisfy the utilitarian principle

 equality a genuine moral sentiment that ought to govern all relationships
 transformation of the family for moral regeneration, spirit of equality and
justice
 women as bright and gifted as men

 universal suffrage, democracy and liberty as conditionally good
 recommended compulsory elementary education
 citizen’s develop intellectual qualities of reason through political
participation

 Mill’s approach was Eurocentric
 distinction between the quantity and quality of pleasures
 linked liberty with self-improvement
 moral and mental autonomy
123
BLOCK IV
Johan Stuart Mill
UNIT 9 THE PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY*
Structure
9.0 Objectives
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Mill’s Critique of Bentham’s ‘Utilitarianism’
9.3 Mill’s views on ‘Utilitarianism’
9.4 The Reformation of Utilitarianism
9.5 Connection between Utility, Justice and Rights
9.6 Liberty, Democracy and Utilitarianism
9.7 Conclusion
9.7 Let Us Sum Up
9.8 References
9.0 OBJECTIVES
The aim of this unit is to familiarise you with the principle of utilitarianism. It will
examine J S Mill’s reformulation of Bentham’s Principle of Utilitarianism and
critically examine Mill’s views on the principle of utilitarianism. After studying
this unit, you should be able to:
 Understand the principle of utilitarianism

 Mill’s Critique of Bentham’s Utilitarianism
 Explain the ways in which Mill reformulates the utilitarian position
 Understand the difference in views of Bentham and Mill on the principle of
utility
 Analyze the idea of utility in relation to justice and rights
9.1 INTRODUCTION
The principle of utilitarianism is one of the central tenets of J S Mill’s political
philosophy. Mill’s father, James Mill, was the closest associate of Jeremy
Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism. Mill was brought up by his father James
Mill in Bentham's philosophy of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism was an attempt to
*
Dr Priya S. Mital, HOD, Department of Political Science, Bhavan’s H.S. College, Mumbai
124
make all decisions in morality, politics, and law by evaluating the comparative The Principle
utility or usefulness of the alternatives to the good of society. It is, sometimes, of Utility
summarized as seeking the ‘greatest good for the greatest number’. John Stuart
Mill was a prolific writer of articles on many topics and also wrote several
treatises. Principles of Political Economy applied his utilitarian ideas to
economics. Dissatisfied with some aspects of Bentham’s theory, Mill introduced
some new ideas into utilitarianism.
9.2 MILL’S CRITIQUE OF BENTHAM’S

UTILITARIANISM
J S Mill’s essays on Bentham and Coleridge, written between 1838 and 1840,
enabled him to critically dissect Benthamism. Mill’s transformative criticism of
Benthamite utilitarianism was one of his greatest contributions to political
thought. Mill retained the basic premise of Bentham’s Utilitarianism, but
distinguished between higher and lower pleasures, and that greater human
pleasure meant an increase not merely in the quantity, but also in the quality of
goods enjoyed. Mill criticized and modified Bentham’s Utilitarianism by taking
into account factors like moral motives, sociability, feeling of universal altruism,
sympathy and a new concept of justice with the key idea of impartiality. He
asserted that the chief deficiency of Benthamite ethics was the neglect of
individual character, and hence stressed on the cultivation of feelings and
imagination as part of good life. He insisted that human beings were capable of
intellectual and moral pleasures, which were superior to the physical ones that
they shared with animals. He succinctly summarized the difference in his famous
and oft-quoted statement: “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig
satisfied, it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool
or the pig is of a different opinion it is because they only know their own side of
the question. The other party in comparison knows both sides”.
In 1826, Mill experienced a mental crisis when he lost all his capacity for joy in
life. He recovered by discovering the romantic poetry of Coleridge and
Wordsworth. He also realized the incompleteness of his education, namely the
lack of the emotional side of life. In his re-examination of Benthamite philosophy,
he attributed its one-sidedness to Bentham’s lack of experience, imagination and
emotions. He made use of Coleridge’s poems to broaden Bentham’s
utilitarianism, and made room for emotional, aesthetic and spiritual dimensions.
However, he never wavered from the fundamentals of Benthamism, though the
major difference between them was that Bentham followed a more simplistic
picturization of the human nature of the French Utilitarians, whereas Mill
followed the more sophisticated Utilitarianism of Hume. The distinctive
characteristic of Mill’s utilitarianism was that he tried to express a conception of
moral character consonant with his own personal idealism.
Mill used the principle of utility, which he regarded as the “ultimate appeal on all
ethical questions” to support his principle of liberty. But, it was utilitarianism 125
BLOCK IV based on the permanent interests of the individual as a progressive being. He
Johan Stuart Mill
made a distinction between toleration and suppression of offensive practices. Mill
observed that in case of offences against public decency, the majority sentiment
would prevail. Beyond these, minorities must be granted the freedom of thought
and expression, and the right to live as they pleased. Mill also tried to reconcile
the interests of the individual and society. He spoke of nobility of character, a trait
that was closely related to altruism, meaning that people did what was good for
society, rather than for themselves. The pleasures they derived from doing good
for society might outweigh the ones that aimed at self-indulgence, contributing to
their happiness. Mill saw social feelings and conscience, as part of the
psychological attributes of a person. He characterized society as being natural and
habitual, for the individual was a social person. To be less than social was
inconceivable. Mill emphasised that the more these social feelings were
heightened, private good and public good coincided.
Mill made happiness and the dignity of man the chief end of life, and not the
principle of pleasure. He defined happiness to mean perfection of human nature,
cultivation of moral virtues and high aspirations. Happiness also referred to total
control over one’s appetites and desires, and recognition of individual and
collective interests. According to him, poetry, drama, music, painting were
essential ingredients, both for human happiness and formation of character. These
were instruments of promoting human culture, and thus the state needed to
develop these for the betterment of society. Mill also stated that pleasures could
not be measured objectively. He described the state as an instrument that would
bring about transformation of the human being. The state played a crucial role in
shaping the ends of an individual through education, and the state could facilitate
the self-realization of individuals, thereby promoting development of society.

the unit.
1. What do you understand by ‘utilitarianism’?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
2. Explain Mill’s critique of Bentham’s principle of utilitarianism.

…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
126
…………………………………………………………………………...……
9.3 MILL’S VIEWS ON ‘UTILITARIANISM’ The Principle
of Utility
J S Mill’s famous pamphlet Utilitarianism (1863) endorsed the Benthamite

principle of the greatest happiness of the greatest number, yet made a significant
departure from the Benthamite assumption by arguing that this principle could
only be defended if a distinction was made between happiness and pleasure.
Happiness, for Mill, was the ability of the individual to discover his innate powers
and develop these while exercising his human abilities of autonomous thought
and action. In other words, happiness meant liberty and individuality. Liberty was
regarded as a fundamental prerequisite for leading a good, worthy and dignified
life. The contention of the essay On Liberty is that happiness so conceived is best
achieved in a free society governed by the principle of liberty.
Mill pointed out that every human action had three aspects: (a) the moral aspect
of right and wrong, (b) the aesthetic aspect (or its beauty); and (c) the sympathetic
aspect (or its goodness). The first principle instructed one to approve or
disapprove, the second taught one to admire or despise, and the third enabled one
to love, pity or dislike. He regarded individual self-development and diversity as
the ultimate ends, important components of human happiness and the principal
ingredients of individual and social progress. Mill put forward the criteria of
utility or, the greatest happiness principle as the basis of morality. That action is
moral which increases pleasure and reduces pain. In defending utilitarianism, as
mentioned earlier, Mill made a significant change from Bentham’s position and
stated that pleasure is to be counted not only in terms of quantity, but also in
terms of quality. According to Mill, a qualitatively higher pleasure is to count for
more than lower pleasures. Mill’s utilitarianism differed from Bentham’s by
focussing on qualitative aspect of pleasures. According to Mill, in order to
calculate the value of a pleasure, one has to factor in the nature of the activity
from which that pleasure is being derived. Since the activity enters into the
evaluation of the pleasure, utilitarianism is no longer about mental states, but
about what we actually do.
Mill sought to defend the principle of greatest happiness of the greatest number
by distinguishing happiness from pleasure. He also replaced the quantitative
approach of Bentham by a qualitative one. Mill also convincingly argued for a
defence of basic freedoms by law. According to him, the purpose of law was to
maximize liberty, as it gave an opportunity for “self-realization”. He made an
important distinction between the public sphere regulated by law, and the private
sphere regulated by morality. Mill saw the need for a liberal society as a basic
precondition of a liberal state and government. He defended free speech and the
right of individuality. Mill, unlike many contemporary liberals, championed
women’s rights, seeing sexual inequality as ethically and legally untenable. Mill
updated Smith’s ideas in his Principles of Political Economy (1848), in which he
not only defended laissez faire, but also argued that a just and orderly economic
development was possible if trade unions existed. The trade unions would restore
a balance in the bargaining process between the capitalists and their employees. 127
BLOCK IV His concern for social justice was reflected in his proposals for redistribution of
Johan Stuart Mill
wealth, mainly by taxation.

the unit.
1. Expalin Mill’s principle of utility?

…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
9.4 THE REFORMULATION OF UTILITARIANISM

Mill carried forward the thinking of Jeremy Bentham in Utilitarianism, departing
from Bentham in significant ways in an attempt to make utilitarianism more
realistic and applicable to real-world political and legal issues and also traditions
that embodied the historical experience of people. Mill's principle of utility is
today embedded in most of what we do in science, business, and government.
Utilitarianism represented the dream of making morals and politics scientific, with
the morality of an action based on its consequences and the ability to predict
them, rather than on motive or process. Mill acknowledged that the strongest
criticism of utilitarianism was the non-consequentialist argument that morality is
not based on consequences of actions, as utilitarians held, but is instead based on
the foundational and universal concept of justice. Mill tried to explain the concept
of justice in terms of utility. First, he argued that all moral elements in the notion
of justice depend on social utility and that there are two such elements:
punishment and the perceived violation of someone's rights. Punishment in turn
derives from a combination of vengeance and social sympathy. Mill observed that
social sympathy is equivalent to social utility and vengeance has no moral
component. Mill stated that rights are claims one has on society to protect one,
and the only reason society should protect one is because of social utility. Thus,
both elements of justice, punishment and rights, are based on utility.
Mill's second argument was that if justice were foundational or fundamental, then
justice would not be as debatable and puzzling as it is. The evidence for this are
the disputes in the notion of justice, when examining theories of punishment, fair
distribution of wealth, and fair taxation. Mill argued that these disputes can only
be resolved by appealing to utility. Mill concludes that justice is a genuine
concept, but we must see it as based on utility. Mill was convinced that a good
society was one which consisted of happy people, and happiness came out of self-
128 reliance, rationality, tolerance, wide-ranging interests and a compassionate
temper. For Mill, “coercion is logically at odds with the creation of such a The Principle
character”. Self-development and moral progress were instrumental to such a of Utility
good life, leading to the establishment of a meaningful life of the individual. This
was only possible where coercion, in the name of either class or gender was
eliminated.
Mill, the rationalist and the utilitarian, was also the philosopher of human
liberation, individuality, equality and fulfilment. Mill accepted the Industrial
Revolution, for it produced a class of energetic and acquisitive entrepreneurs with
the sole aim of the profit motive and the accumulation of money. He feared mass
democracy because of its collective mediocrity, which would destroy higher
civilization. Mill was fearful of mass conformity and the effect it would have on
individual freedom. He favoured a society based on just meritocracy. He was not
appreciative of the destruction caused by the French Revolution, though he was
happy about the decline of the monarchy and nobility. Mill was also happy at the
reduction of the influence and role of the Church. He assigned an important role
to the intellectual elite in shaping and making the attitudes and beliefs in a
society, particularly in times of transition. He also insisted on the need to correlate
political institutions with society. He was a fervent liberal political reformer, and
in The Subjection of Women he advocated equality for women. According to Mill,
the ‘Principle of Utility’ is the principle that happiness is the only thing desirable
as an end.
9.5 CONNECTION BETWEEN UTILITY, JUSTICE

AND RIGHTS
Mill observes that throughout history, one of the major barriers to the acceptance
of utility has been that it does not allow for a theory of justice. Mill tries to
address this challenge by determining whether the justice or injustice of an action
is something intrinsic or distinct from questions of utility. Mill begins by trying to
pin down the meaning of justice, by coming up with a list of those things that are
commonly classified as just or unjust.
 First, it is considered unjust to deprive someone of his legal rights.

However, this concept has exceptions. For example, a person may have
legal rights, his rights may be the provision of a bad law. While people
vary on whether bad laws can be justly disobeyed, all people agree that
laws can be unjust. Therefore, law cannot be the ultimate standard of
justice.
 A second form of injustice comes from depriving someone of something
he has a moral right to possess.
 Third, it is considered just that a person receive what he deserves, and
unjust that he obtain something that he doesn’t deserve; people are thought
to deserve good things if they have done right, and evil things if they have
done wrong.
129
BLOCK IV
Johan Stuart Mill
 A fourth form of injustice is to violate an agreement with someone or
disappoint expectations that one knowingly nurtured.
 Fifth, it is considered unjust to show favouritism and preference in
inappropriate circumstances. However, it is not generally necessary to be
impartial; for example, one doesn’t have to be impartial in the selection of
friends. The claim is rather that a person should only be influenced by
those considerations that should apply in a given circumstance.
 Finally, the idea of equality is seen by many to be a component of justice;
some people may have an exception for the sake of expediency, however.
Mill acknowledges that given so many different applications of the concept of

justice, it is hard to find what links them all together, and on what concept the
sentiment of justice is based. Nevertheless, he believes that people do see justice
as a unified concept, and do feel a sentiment of justice regardless of whether they
understand its foundation. Mill says that some help may come from looking at the
history of the word. In most languages, the word’s origin came from either
positive law or authoritative custom. Thus, the most primitive element of justice is
the idea of conformity to law. The Greeks and Romans realized that there could
be bad laws, and thus justice came to be associated with only those laws that
ought to exist, including those that should exist but do not.
Mill also recognizes, however, that the idea of justice is often applied to areas
about which we would not want legislation. The limitation on the scope of the
state’s right to punish in particular cases has to do with practical concerns about
extending the state’s power and not with a sense that the person should not be
punished. Mill observes that something is considered wrong only when it is
thought that the person should be punished either by law, opinion, or one’s own
conscience. Thus, moral obligation in general comes from the idea of duty, the
idea that a person may rightly be compelled to do something. He argues that this
concept of deserving or not deserving punishment is the essence of moral thinking
in general. Mill has already explicitly identified the Principle of Utility with the
Greatest Happiness Principle. It is natural to suppose that here Mill identifies
both of these with the doctrine that actions are right or wrong in proportion as
they tend to promote happiness or the reverse, and this in turn with what he calls
‘theory of morality.’
Mill argues that justice can be distinguished from other forms of morality by
looking at the difference between perfect and imperfect obligations. Imperfect
obligations are those that no one person has the right to require of another, it
involves the idea of a personal right. In cases of justice, the person who has been
wronged has had his or her moral right encroached upon; it is thus his or her
moral right to seek compensation. Mill responds to the claim that utilitarianism is
opposed to justice. From Mill’s perspective, justice is not an abstract concept so
much as it is a sentiment about morality that many people share. In defining
justice Mill looks to what other people mean by the term. He says that “justice
130 exists because people believe it exists, and it means what they believe it to mean.”
Starting from the popular conception of justice, Mill theorizes about what links a The Principle
diverse set of ideas about justice. He argues that they are united by the concept of of Utility
rights. This notion of rights, he introduces in his claims about perfect and
imperfect obligations. For Mill, a right means that a person has a valid claim that
society has to protect him against any violation. Many utilitarians dismiss the idea
of rights as nonsense, and many debates on utilitarianism centre around the
question regarding the existence of rights. Mill has a different perspective on this
issue and he defends rights under a utilitarian framework.
Finally, the only objection that Mill took seriously was that justice, instead of
utility is the foundation of morality. Mill’s response was first to link justice with
rights—an injustice is done when someone’s rights are violated—and then to
assert that rights are to be defended because of their utility. A society in which
individuals are certain of enjoying their rights is the one, which according to Mill,
is able to progress. Thus, rights do not replace the concept of utility, rather the
existence of rights is a necessary condition for the realisation of utilitarian goals.
For Mill, utility was the justification for rights.

the unit.
1. Explain the concepts of justice and rights in relation to the principle of utility.
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
9.6 LIBERTY, DEMOCRACY AND

UTILITARIANISM
Bentham stipulated happiness, and not liberty, as the end of the state. Bentham
was categorical that a government and a state had to be judged by their usefulness
to the individual. The task of a sovereign was to harmonize different individual
interests and promote social cooperation through legislation in the form of
punishment, rewards, encouragement and incentives. Bentham defined liberty as
absence of restraints and coercion. Fundamental to his concept of liberty was the
idea of security linking his idea of civil and political liberty. A legislator
established a framework of security through law, within which the individual
enjoyed liberty. At the level of constitutional law, a legislator guaranteed against
misrule, abuse and arbitrary exercise of power. Law, according to Bentham, had
to be codified, simple, systematic and logical, based on the principle of the
‘greatest happiness of the greatest number’.
131
BLOCK IV Mill made certain modifications to the existing theory of utilitarianism, so that it
Johan Stuart Mill
would become consistent with his ideas of liberty and democracy. Mill’s writings
on liberty and democracy raise questions about the link between these two
concepts and the idea of utility. While examining this, we must remember that
Mill never gave up his self characterization as a utilitarian. For example, when he
spoke about rights, he included rights under the concept of utility, defining rights
as nothing else but some extremely important utilities. Mill also dealt with the
important question as to why would individuals be interested in the happiness of
others? Mill answered in terms of the ‘social feelings of mankind; the desire to be
in unity with our fellow creatures, which was a powerful principle of human
nature.’ Mill claimed that the social state is so natural and so habitual to man, that
a human being’s tendency of taking an interest in others’ happiness is not
surprising at all.
By making liberty the chief aim and objective of the state, he established the
limits of legitimate interference by society and the state in areas that strictly and
exclusively belonged to the individual. The early utilitarians in general and
Bentham in particular, were concerned with the ascendancy of political
democracy as a complement to the Industrial Revolution. The Reform Bill of
1832 was seen as securing a good government. Mill perceived the dangers
inherent in such an extension: the tyranny of opinion and prejudices, the will of
the majority overriding individuality and minority perceptions. He was no longer
concerned about the suppression that authoritarianism resorted to. Instead, it was
the preservation of individual and minority rights against the democratic state and
public opinion. He could foresee the dangers inherent in laissez faire
commercialism. It was not just the freedom to do as one pleased or willed, but
freedom of thought, to think differently. In spite of his passionate advocacy of
individuality and liberty for all, Mill remained intellectually an elitist.
Mill visualized the state as a moral institution concerned with the promotion of
virtue and excellence in the individual citizen. He felt that a conception of good
life was more important than a life devoted to the pursuit of pleasure. He pleaded
for the removal of obstacles in the way of the individual’s self-development that
made life less mean and less intolerable for the masses. He, however, continued to
see the state as a product of wills, though not of interests, and contended that to
ignore the state as constituted by human wills was fallacious.
Mill, like Coleridge and Burke, regarded cultivation of culture as social and
emphasized the need for institutions that would conform and constitute the
individual’s personal needs. Mill was essentially a critic of the complacency and
conventions of Victorian English society, as evident from his three main tracts,
On Liberty, Representative Government, and The Subjection of Women. Since an
individual did not develop in isolation, Mill argued that for the flowering of a
vibrant culture, healthy discourse, diversity and a concern for public affairs,
liberty of expression assumed special significance. Mill rejected the natural
132 distinction between men and women and dismissed women’s nature as an
artificial thing, a product of what he described as “forced repression in some The Principle
directions, unnatural stimulations in others”. He perceived the subjection of of Utility
women as a conspiracy hatched by men to keep them ignorant and subordinate.
Mill was also convinced that advancement of democracy would depend on the
spread of education and schooling. Following Rousseau, he advocated
participation in public affairs as a means of counterbalancing human selfishness.
Mill believed that participation maximized responsibility. His entire focus was on
enlarging participation and the individual’s freedom of choice. Participation was
integral to political education. An educated citizenry was vital to the creation of a
healthy political system. The achievement of higher politics required, among
other things, opportunities for personal growth, which entailed bringing more and
better schooling, more civic participation, more material benefits, and more
happiness within the reach of more and more people. Throughout his work, we
can see him applying the standard of utility. For instance, one consideration for
giving equality to women was that it would increase their happiness, and the
principle of liberty was defended on the grounds of its social utility or social
usefulness. Mill stated that social progress depended on individual liberty. A
modified liberal democracy was characterized as the best form of government
because of its usefulness in improving the quality of its citizens. According to
Mill, political development, personal growth, and an increase in the total sum of
human happiness were to move forward together.
Mill in his work Utilitarianism sought to answer all the objections that had been
raised against this philosophy. By making liberty the chief aim and objective of
the state, he established the limits of legitimate interference by society and the
state in areas that strictly and exclusively belonged to the individual. Mill
distinguished between the public sphere of law and the private sphere of morality,
and the need to guarantee by law, basic human freedoms. He also established the
relationship between law and liberty, whereby law as a system maximized liberty,
namely self-development. He clearly saw the need to establish a large ambit of
freedom, while emphasizing some restraints, both as a condition of social life, and
for protecting freedom itself. He was not indifferent to conduct that fell short of
accepted standards of private morality. He also advocated proportional
representation as a device to protect the rights of the minorities, giving them an
opportunity to share power.

the unit.
1. Explain if there is a link between liberty, democracy and utility.

…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...…… 133
BLOCK IV …………………………………………………………………………...……
Johan Stuart Mill
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
9.7 LET US SUM UP

To sum up, it may be stated that the principle of utility refers to the principle that
happiness is the only thing desirable as an end. J S Mill championed the right to
express one’s opinion, it being immaterial whether one was right or wrong. The
important thing was free expression and articulation of contesting opinions. Mill
humanized and broadened the ambit of liberalism as well as utilitarianism, and
emphasised that a liberal state had the duty to empower the disadvantaged and the
dispossessed. He also insisted that the state had to grant the means of self-
protection to its people. Towards this end, he advocated women’s
enfranchisement, quality elementary education for the masses and land reforms
for agricultural labourers. Mill applied liberal principles not only in the public
sphere but also in the private realm, and was the only philosopher to emphasize
the importance of fairness, equality and independence within the family as well as
within the state. Mill’s efforts to revise and modify classical Utilitarianism by
emphasizing the social aspect of the individual, the need to assess happiness both
quantitatively and qualitatively, stating that liberty and not happiness was the
chief end of the state, and defining happiness to include liberty, individuality,
self-development and self-control, paved the way for many of the changes that
were initiated within English political thought and practice. Mill’s most important
concern was the preservation of liberty within a democratic society as an intrinsic
good in itself, and looked down on majority tyranny and mass mediocrity as
potent threats to individuality and liberty. Mill believed that utilitarian goals could
be achieved only with the state developing a good society, and facilitating
promotion of liberal values.
9.8 REFERENCES
 Barry, N.P. (1995). Introduction to Modern Political Theory. London:
Macmillan.
 Collini, Stefan (ed.). (1989). On Liberty and Other Writings. Cambridge:

 Cowling, M. (1963). Mill and Liberalism. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
 Donner, Wendy. (1991). The Liberal Self: John Stuart Mill’s Moral and
Political Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
 Germino, D. (1972). Modern Western Political Thought: Machiavelli to

Marx. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
134
 Gettel, R.G. (1924). History of Political Thought. New York: Novell & The Principle
Co. of Utility
 Gray, J. (1983). Mill on Liberty: A Defence. London: Routledge.
 Gray, J. (1986). Liberalism. London: Open University Press.
 Jha, Shefali. (2018). Western Political Thought. Chennai: Pearson India

Education Services Pvt. Ltd
 McCloskey, H.J. (1971): John Stuart Mill: A Critical Study. London:

Macmillan.
 Mukherjee, S. and Ramawsamy.S. (2011). A History of Political Thought.

New Delh: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.
 Nagel, Thomas. (1970). The Possibility of Altruism. Oxford: Clarendon

Press.
 Skorupski, John (ed.). (1998). The Cambridge Companion to Mill.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Thompson, Dennis F. (1976). John Stuart Mill and Representative

Government. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

EXERCISES
1. Your answer should highlight following the points:
 Utilitarianism as seeking the ‘greatest good for the greatest number’
 Evaluating usefulness of the alternatives to the good of society
2. Your answer should highlight following points

 Mill distinguished between higher and lower pleasures
 Pleasure meant an increase not merely in the quantity but also in the
quality of goods enjoyed
 Intellectual and moral pleasures

 Happiness to mean perfection of human nature
 Replaced the quantitative approach of Bentham by a qualitative one
 Mill tried to explain the concept of justice in terms of utility
135
BLOCK IV
 List of things classified as just
 Moral obligation and moral thinking
 Diverse ideas about justice are united by concept of rights

 Liberty as the chief aim and objective of the state
 Reasons for individuals being interested in the happiness of others
 State as a moral institution
136

JS Mill

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JS Mill

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Liberty and

 Understand J.S. Mill’s differences with Jeremy Bentham on Utilitarianism

Mill’s defence of individualism and liberty is an embodiment of his form of

7.2 MILL’S UTILITARIANISM – A PRECURSOR TO

The basic premise of utilitarianism was retained by Mill but he distinguished

Moreover, he maintained that human beings were capable of moral pleasures as

He regarded individual’s self-development and diversity as the ultimate ends, as

1. What impression of individualism can be drawn about from Mill’s revision of

3. Why is it important to consider the difference between Mill’s and Bentham’s

7.3 MILL’S VIEWS ON INDIVIDUALISM

Mill’s idea of individualism is based on the principle of ethical hedonism which

Check Your Progress Exercise 2

1. Explain Mill’s take on Individualism.

Mill essentially defended the liberty of action in self-regarding sphere of action

1. Evils of coercion far outweighed the good achieved.

In addition to this liberty of action in sphere of self-regarding actions, Mill also

1. If an opinion is suppressed as against the prevailing notion and the

According to Mill, it is the clash of views facilitated by freedom of expression

1. What is Mill’s defence of the right to individuality in self-regarding sphere of

2. Explain Mill’s views on freedom of speech and expression.

3. Discuss Mill’s defence of Individual freedom and individuality.

7.5 CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Check Your Progress Exercise 4

 Collini, Stefan (ed.). (1989). On Liberty and Other Writings. Cambridge:

 Cowling, M. (1963).Mill and Liberalism.Cambridge: Cambridge

 Gray, J. (1983). Mill on Liberty: A Defence. London: Routledge.

 Macleod, Christopher. John Stuart Mill. Stanford Encyclopedia of

 Mill, John Stuart (1993). Utilitarianism. New York: Bantum Classics.

 Mukherjee, Subrata and Ramawsamy, Sushila. (2011). A History of

 Riley, Jonathan (1998). Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Mill on

7.8 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

2. Your answer should highlight the following points:

3. Your answer should highlight the following points:

Check Your Progress Exercise 2

Check Your Progress Exercise 3

2. Your answer should highlight the following points:

3. Your answer should highlight the following points:

Check Your Progress Exercise 4

After studying this unit, you should be able to discuss:

 Mill’s views on subjection of women in a society

8.2 MILL’S WRITINGS AND ‘THE SUBJECTION OF

Check Your Progress Exercise 1

2. Write a note highlighting the views of Mill in ‘The Subjection of Women’.

8.3 MILL ON IMPORTANCE OF INDIVIDUAL

Check Your Progress Exercise 2

1. How will society benefit by granting equal rights to women?

8.4 RIGHTS OF WOMEN AND GENDER EQUALITY

Check Your Progress Exercise 3

8.5 POLITICAL RIGHTS AND WOMEN’S

Women's suffrage refers to the right of women to participate in democratic

8.6 CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Mill’s The Subjection of Women (1869) continues to be cited as an authority by

Check Your Progress Exercise 4

 Coleman, J. (2000): A History of Political Thought, Oxford, Blackwell

 Collini, Stefan (ed.) (1989). On Liberty and Other Writings. Cambridge:

 Gray, J. (1983). Mill on Feminism. London: Routledge.

 Gray, J. (1983). Mill on Liberty: A Defence. London:Routledge.

 Jha, Shefali . (2018). Western Political Thought. Chennai: Pearson India

 Kelly, P (eds.), (2009): Political Thinkers: From Socrates to the Present,

 Miliband, R.(1950). Mill on Bentham and Coleridge. London: Fontana.

 Miliband, R. (1976): Utilitarianism: On Liberty and Considerations on

 Mukherjee, S. and Ramawsamy.S. (2011). A History of Political Thought.

 Ryan, A. (1970). The Philosophy of John Stuart Mill. London:

 Skorupski, J. (1998). The Cambridge Companion to Mill. Cambridge: