BOTH SIDES OF THE MOUTH

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy introduces John Stuart Mill (1808-1873) in the following manner, which probably holds the key to his world-historical legacy. Yes, he was extremely influential, but no, he was not very original:

“John Stuart Mill, British philosopher, economist, moral and political theorist and administrator, was the most influential English-speaking philosopher of the nineteenth century. His views are of continuing significance, generally recognized to be among the deepest and certainly the most effective defenses of empiricism and of liberal political views of society and culture. The overall aim of his philosophy is to develop a positive view of the universe and of the place of humans in it, one which contributes to the progress of human knowledge, individual freedom, and wellbeing. His views are not entirely original, having their roots in the empiricism of John Locke, George Berkeley and David Hume and in the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham. But he gave them a new depth, and his formulations were sufficiently articulate, to gain for them a continuing influence among a broad public.”

John Stuart Mill is an interesting philosopher, in many ways far more interesting than his father James Mill, although I naturally agree with Bertrand Russell that he cannot be placed among the greatest. (According to Russell, he and several others he names, were none of them quite in the front rank among philosophers, that is to say, they were not the equals of the men (in Mill’s case, it was Jeremy Bentham) whose systems they on the whole adopted.) Mill was indeed a derivative philosopher and, as Russell notes, no matter how hard he tried to be original, he could never liberate himself from the debilitating influences of Jeremy Bentham and of his father James Mill.

John Stuart Mill was literally born into utilitarianism. His father James Mill was a friend and supporter of Bentham, only far more dogmatic and intractable, in their common silliness. The son received a spectacular education at the hands of his dedicated father, who saw the sine qua non of good government in better education, and, as they say, walked the talk with his son. Mill the Younger grew up an accomplished elitist in his philosophical outlook. In the words of Encyclopaedia Britannica, he thought that civilization depended on a tiny minority of creative minds, and on the free play of speculative intelligence. He detested conventional public opinion, and he feared that complete democracy, far from emancipating that opinion, would make it more restrictive. Accepting democracy as inevitable, he nevertheless feared it, as a force capable of stifling civilization by its promotion of the tyranny of the majority. The worth of the state in the long run, only amounts to the worth of the individuals composing it, and without men of genius, society would become a stagnant pool.

Derivative or not,  there are certainly a number of things that I like about the person and philosophy of John Stuart Mill. Here is a quote from his Representative Government (1861), which I have already fondly used before. It goes to the heart of my argument about the practicality of all Utopian projects, Communism being their natural first choice:

“Whenever it ceases to be true that mankind, as a rule, prefers themselves to others, and those nearest to them to those more remote, from that moment Communism is not only practicable, but the only defensible form of society; and will, when that time arrives, be assuredly carried into effect.”

Fortunately for him, and even for the best that our friend Jeremy Bentham has to offer, their legacy cannot be cruelly reduced by some intellectual Procrustes to the one-size-fits-all utilitarian bed that Bentham built and John Stuart Mill was born in.

 

Leaving a few appealing aspects of his political philosophy aside, however, the rest of Mill’s philosophy is far less appealing, and often objectionable. Here is a pertinent excerpt from Bertrand Russell’s Chapter on The Utilitarians in his History of Western Philosophy:

John Stuart Mill, in his 1863 treatise Utilitarianism, offers an argument which is so fallacious that it is hard to understand how he can have thought it valid. Pleasure is the only thing desired; therefore pleasure is the only thing desirable.” He says that the only things visible are things seen, the only things audible are things heard, and similarly the only things desirable are things desired. He does not notice that a thing is visible if it can be seen, but is desirable if it ought to be desired. Thus, desirable is such a word that presupposes an ethical theory; we cannot infer what is desirable from what is desired.

Suspecting a very reputable philosopher (J. S. Mill), as Russell does, of having no understanding of ethics is an accusation of the highest order, yet, sadly, it is by no means unfounded. Indeed, there is a grave challenge to ethics in the nature of utilitarianism as such; and all its proponents, Mill included, cannot escape a severe judgment of this nature.

In his economic philosophy, Mill was initially a proponent of free markets. He accepted interventions in the economy, however, such as taxing alcohol, if there were sufficient utilitarian grounds for it. He also initially believed that equality of taxation meant equality of sacrifice, and that progressive taxation was a penalty on those who worked harder and saved more, and was, therefore, “a mild form of robbery.” Later on, Mill’s views acquired a more socialist bent, and he even added chapters to his Principles of Political Economy in defense of a socialist outlook and went so far as to defend some socialist causes. (What a striking contrast with his anti-Socialist father James!)

It was probably on account of such shifting of his positions, especially in the area of political economy, that Mill was lampooned as talking from "both sides of his mouth."