 | GetTextbooks.com Compare Prices & Save up to 90% | | |
|
| Login | Sign up | Settings | New! iPhone App | My Wish List | My iBundle |
 | | On Liberty by Steven M. Cahn ISBN-10: 9780742542471 ISBN-10: 0-7425-4247-5 ISBN-13: 9780742542471 ISBN-13: 978-0-7425-4247-1 Paperback 2005-01-07 Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Find Lowest Price |
Editorials | ||
Product Description Visit our website for samples! | ||
Reviews | ||
"Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." "On Liberty", by John Stuart Mill is one of the most important works in political philosophy. Many of Mills' words have passed into common usage in the years since the book was published in 1859. To quote one famous example: "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." Mill writes in a florid, orotund style that often defies the rapid reader. One frequently has to plod through an over-punctuated verbal and syntactic thicket twice or thrice in order to extract the meaning of a passage. In this respect, Mill was perhaps no worse than other philosophical writers of his day - or indeed of any day. However "On Liberty" is definitely worth persevering with; not only for its exposition of the subject, but also for some wonderful passages of writing. Mill has a gift for simple exposition of complex philosophical questions. Liberty is always under threat, even in countries perhaps best known for valuing and promoting individual liberty - at least in the rhetoric of political leaders, if not in their practice. That might sound incredible, but one has only to reflect on the encroachments on liberty occasioned by the "war on terror" and the general support of the majority for such encroachments. In this case both governments and governed conspire to deny others liberty; the former by diktat, demagoguery and secrecy and the latter by strident bigotry. But, if I might be permitted a facetious remark, perhaps those countries have taken Mill too much to heart where he asserts that "despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided that the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end." Such a patronising, indeed ignorant, view is repugnant to libertarians today, but it was a commonplace view among officials and churchmen in the high noon of the British Empire. But lest we feel too smug about the superiority of our own age, I will observe that we can see echoes of similar odious attitudes today in foreign policy, and the same will no doubt be true of future dominant powers yet to come onto the world stage. However, to be fair to Mill, his passing comment on "barbarians" is only one very minor part of this great book. More to the point, he asserts strongly in the book that views which are considered to be settled truth in one era may often be rejected in another. He goes on to say that conventional wisdom should always be rigorously tested and not merely assumed to be true on the authority of others. There are also large parts of the world where freedom of expression, and indeed freedom of thought, are suppressed. It is to be greatly hoped that "On Liberty" will one day be as influential there as it has been elsewhere. Mill himself states eloquently (but perhaps optimistically) that while the truth may be suppressed many times, it will ultimately prevail. After an introductory Chapter, Mill discusses liberty under four broad Chapters that I will touch on briefly below. In the Chapter on liberty of thought and expression, Mill has a swipe at the Christian faith. Some believers may be offended by this discussion, but why should they? The truth should be able to withstand the assaults of opposing views - indeed (as Mill says) it should welcome contrary views both as a means of strengthening the truth, and as a means of rooting out error. Moreover, Mill was writing in the middle of the 19th century, just before the publication of Darwin's theory of evolution, at a time when Christianity in England enjoyed many advantages and official protections. He quotes the example of a man who went to prison for writing an anti-Christian sentiment on a gate - an exemplary message to others who might be tempted to express their true thoughts. In the Chapter on individuality Mill maintains that liberty of thought and expression must necessarily lead to the desirability of people living as they choose, providing that they do not infringe the liberty or well-being of others. However, the arguments in this chapter are less well-presented than in the former chapter. Mill also makes an assertion that most people would reject today: "No government by a democracy.....ever did, or could, rise above mediocrity." However it is important to remember that Mill wrote shortly after the extension of the voting franchise in Great Britain, when fears about democratic government were widely discussed, since experience of democratic government in modern industrial societies was quite limited at that time. In the Chapter on the limits to the authority of society over the individual, Mill makes the point that while the individual is sovereign over himself, the society in which he lives and from which he derives protection and other benefits also has rights over the individual. The individual is not accountable to society for his actions if they affect him alone; but as soon as one person's conduct adversely affects the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it. The wide-ranging implications of this principle are discussed comprehensively and lucidly - with good reason, because the allocation of rights and responsibilities between the individual and society is the most important business of coherent groups of human beings. In the final chapter, Mill discusses the practical application of his ideas, accepting that this is not always an easy matter. | ||
What is Liberty? You Might be Surprised When J. S. Mill published ON LIBERTY in 1859, he was then but the latest in a very long line of liberal theorists that stretched back to Plato and continued intermittenly for the next two millennia. These theorists as did Mill attempted to ascertain what if any was that fine line between the rights of the individual to live unimpeded from the caprices of a ruling state and the duty of that state to maintain the civil order necessary for those rights to exist. That we today still have not defined this line is a testimony to the never ending struggle of thinkers like Mill to present arguments of which each succeeding generation must be made aware. From the day it first appeared in print, readers have been entranced by the clarion call for unrestrained liberty. Mill wrote ON LIBERTY in such a manner that to argue against it suggests that to do so renders one as either a tyrant or a boor. Further, those who question Mill must walk a fine line between not supporting the very tyrannical state against which Mill rails and carrying out the the logical conclusion of accepting his definition of liberty at face value. I question Mill's underlying if unnoticed logic even as I applaud his cheerleading. Mill sees society as a perpetual repressor of the liberty of its citizens. For him, liberty consists of the ability to think and do as one pleases. Barring certain exceptions this liberty is the very foundation of any society that dares to call itself free. Society, then, must bend over backwards to ensure that all possess it. The chief stumbling block in this quest lies less in the individuating traits of people and more in the the tendency of rulers to rely on the heavy hand of custom to maintain its own existence even at the cost of denying liberty to their subjects. Mill sees "custom" as a dirty word that is all that is wrong with society. Nowhere does he concern himself with any positive connotations. He limits its use only to describe that which has the potential to stamp out every last smidgeon of creativity that might otherwise emerge. He fears that it will be the ruled, and not the rulers, who wish to crush dissent. To protect individuals from custom, Mill states that only those who are daring enough to defy society may do so. He calls such dissenters as "eccentrics." For him, it is a term of praise that brings to mind heirs of a very long line of liberal thought from ancient Greek days. Just as Mill ignores the reality that custom has two divergent senses so does he similarly ignore the same about eccentrics. Clearly, if history proves anything, it is that those who have differed in ways that are bestial are about as numerous as those that are beneficial. When Mill champions the absolute right of eccentrics to challenge custom, he opens the door to tear down the bonds of society and not erect anything of a compensatory nature. When he argues that liberty must not be used to harm others, he is using a red herring to divert attention from the grim realization that to be different means far more than than saying so. | ||
The great defender of individual liberty John Stuart Mill, 1806-73, worked for the East India Co. helped run Colonial India from England. Minister of Parliament 1865-68 he served one term. Maiden speech was a disaster his second was great success. He was first MP to propose that women should be given the vote on equal footing with the men who could vote. He got 1/3 support, England gives franchise to women after U.S. He was a great Feminist, his essay "Subjection of Women" is written with great passion and prose. It was a brave position for him to take he was ridiculed for it. He favored democracy, and letting more men from lower classes the right to vote, but believed that people that are more educated should have more votes then less educated because they would make better decisions about what government should do. He would have wanted to extend education to the masses, so that all may have gotten 2-3 votes and so on. He didn't think it should be extended to where a small elite could carry the day on votes. The idea was that if the working class, and middle class, where divided on an issue, the people with more intelligence would have the power to tip the balance. Mill thought that people with more education would probably not only be better able to make political decisions, especially in terms of intellectually being able to see what would be best for the government to do, but that they would also be more concerned about the common good publicly then people in general. He was intensely educated by his father James. John could read Greek, and Latin at 6 yrs.; his Dad tutored him at home. Dad thought environment was everything. He was treated like an adult, never played games with kids; he had a very cerebral upbringing. He had a period of depression in his twenties, it changed his philosophy, and he recognized the importance of developing feelings along with the intellect, this is something that he stressed in his work. He read poetry to get out of depression; he became devoted to poetry and became a romantic. He fell in love with a married woman Harriet Taylor, was a platonic relationship, after her husband's death they married 3 years later and probably never consummated the marriage maybe due to his having syphilis. His dedication to "On Liberty" is to her, very devoted to each other. Both buried together in Avignon France where they used to vacation. Mill as a moral theorist subscribed to a theory we call Utilitarianism. It means---In some way morality is about the maximization of happiness. Whether actions are right or wrong depends on how happiness can be most effectively maximized. I say in some way, because there are allot of different kinds of Utilitarians. Allot of different ways of saying exactly how it is the maximization of happiness comes into morality. Therefore, happiness is clearly an important idea for Utilitarians. Mill has a hedonistic view of happiness, he thinks that happiness can be defined in terms of "pleasure in the absence of pain." What is distinctive about Mill in this area is that he believes that some kinds of pleasure are better than others are, and add more to a person's happiness than other kinds of pleasures. He believes in what he calls, "higher quality pleasures." These are pleasures, he says, that we get from the exercise of faculties that only human beings happen to have. So the intellect, imagination, the moral feelings, these are the sources of higher quality pleasures people use. His view seems to be that a certain quantity of intellectual pleasure just adds more to your happiness, and a given quantity of some lower pleasure like a kind we would share with the animals such as sensation, taste, sexual pleasure, etc. His "higher quality pleasures" in a way echo Aristotle's ethics. The idea of those things that make us distinctly human that are the real key to our happiness, that is in Mill also. It is not as limited to reason and intellect as Aristotle thinks. Mill recognizes the importance of the appreciation of beauty, aesthetic pleasure, and moral pleasure. He frankly owes a debt to Aristotle that he never properly acknowledges, never gives him proper credit. "On Liberty" is Mill's is his most widely read and enduring work. It is an indispensable essay on political thought, which strenuously argues for individual liberty. He is defending what he calls the "liberty principle." It is a principle that guarantees individuals quite a bit of personal freedom. "That 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." These quoted sentences in John Stuart Mill's book, "On Liberty," embody the crux of his argument; that the power of the state must intrude as little as possible on the liberty of its citizenry. In essence, Mill was against using the power of the state through its lawmaking apparatus to compel citizens to conduct themselves in ways that society deems moral or appropriate. Mill thought that people had not only a right, but also a duty to develop their intellectual faculties, which is indispensable to maximize their happiness. He believed that society improved for all its citizens when they where left unfettered to the maximum extent possible, allowing them to use their imagination and intellect to improve themselves. Mill postulates a theory that societies usually institute laws based primarily on "personal preference" of its citizenry instead of established principles. This lack of clarity of opinion often leads to the government frequently interfering in the lives of its citizens unnecessarily. For Mill, there are very few times when the state can infringe on the personal liberty of others. Firstly, the state has the right to promulgate laws that prevent a person's actions from harming others. Secondly, the state must protect those citizens who are not mature enough to protect themselves, such as children. Thirdly, he exempts, "... backward states of society in which the race itself may be considered as in its nonage." In Mill's view, immature societies need a benevolent leader to rule them until they have developed to a point where they, "... have attained the capacity of being guided to their own improvement by conviction or persuasion ..." Mill said this third exemption did not apply to any of the countries in Europe. Mill believed that forced morality by the state on its citizen's liberties was destructive to their inward development, and could even lead to a violent reaction by them against the government. There are different parts of his defense of this, different arguments that he gives. He has a long chapter on freedom of speech and press. He has some very specific reasons why he thinks those freedoms are important. Always in the background for Mill is the idea of development, and making it possible for more people to enjoy these higher quality pleasures. How do we help people develop their distinctly human faculties, in ways that will help them enjoy their higher quality pleasures? Because for him that is the way, we maximize the total amount of happiness that is enjoyed in the world, and that is the object of morality as far as he is concerned. Utilitarianists believe that maximizing happiness is ultimately, what morality is all about. That does not mean maximizing your own happiness that means maximizing the total amount of happiness that is enjoyed, not only by yourself but also by everybody else as well. Roger Kimball, in his book "Experiments Against Reality" wrote, "On Liberty" was published in 1859, coincidentally the same year as "On the Origin of Species." Darwin's book has been credited--and blamed--for all manner of moral and religious mischief. But in the long run "On Liberty" may have effected an even greater revolution in sentiment. I read this book for a graduate class in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in philosophy, political science, and history. | ||
brilliant analysis and government instruction manual Mill provides a brilliant analysis and commentary on the give and take between the need for government protection and the exercise od individual responsibility. This is now the third time that I have read this book since my college days and I find that I get much more from reading the text each time I read it / separated by a decade each time. | ||
A Classic This is a nice inexpensive edition of On Liberty with a solid introductory essay. Mill's primary concern was to address the potential problem of the "tyranny of the majority" posed by the emerging democratization of society. His concern was prompted specifically by de Toqueville's account of the USA. Mill is concerned not just with the way government could impose conformity to majority views but also with general social pressures for conformity. In opposition to the dangers of majoritarianism, Mill proposes 2 versions of the Harm principle; the first the basic idea that whatever doesn't cause harm is permitted. The second and more restrictive version emphasizes violation of duties to others. Mill argues his case very well, addressing both general principles and specific problems of contemporary British society. In line with his utilitarian approach, he argues vigorously that human improvement requires the type of freedom and tolerance implied by his Harm Principles. This is also in a real sense the weakness of On Liberty. Mill's version of utilitarianism is not the hedonistic utilitarianism of Bentham and his father, nor preference utilitarianism, but a more vague assertion of what is needed for human progression. Well written, and often quoted, this is one of the accessible major texts in the canon. | ||