Mill, John Stuart

[Page 523]John Stuart Mill was a 19th-century British philosopher and economist. He was born in London on May 20, 1806. His father, James Mill, was a philosopher in his own right. James was from Scotland, educated at Edinburgh University; he then moved to London and served as assistant to Jeremy Bentham, who established the utilitarian school of philosophy and who was also John Stuart's godfather. James Mill created a very rigorous educational program for his son.

John Stuart Mill expanded the Benthamite conception of happiness with his clarification of the utility principle and its application to political and social conditions. His coherent expression of moral theory heavily influenced subsequent thinkers, including advocates across a spectrum of drug policies. For instance, proponents of decriminalization and more laissez-faire policies invoke his notion that an individual should be free to pursue goals in the private domain and that claims of exercising power for the individual's own moral or physical good are insufficient to warrant legislated restrictions. This stance was asserted by Mill as it permits individuals to realize their full potential freeing their energy, creativity and talents, which he felt essential to moral and intellectual progress. On the other hand, calls for sterner drug policies claim Mill's ultimate utilitarian credo of preventing harm to others. Mill was fundamentally concerned with the promotion of human self-development and happiness, particularly as expressed in the development and application of higher human faculties.

Mill felt that society was justified in punishing people's behaviors under certain conditions. These conditions include not only when an individual's behavior harms others, but also when it undermines social cohesion. In keeping with Jean-Jacques Rousseau's social contract, Mill also felt that society was justified in punishing the behavior of an individual when it contradicted the will of the majority. Mill put great weight behind the opinion of the majority. For instance, he felt that the content of education should be determined by majority opinion. However, he felt that democratization impeded individuality. Individuality, he asserted, was good for both the individual and for society. Since Mill lived in a Christian society he believed that Christian morality was correct, although he admitted that it might not be the complete truth.

Mill argued that people have certain responsibilities to society. These include not harming others and not violating the basic claims that others have on society. Further, Mill felt that the individual was required to defend society and its members. Mill did not accept the notion that those who advocated truth could be justly persecuted despite the consequences. He supported this contention on the basis that to do so would first be unfair to those martyred for the truth and, further, that it would also demonstrate a lack of respect for that truth. There is the inherent danger that to do so might result in those ideas being lost for centuries.

Mill was one of the leading 19th-century proponents of liberalism. His work, On Liberty, is considered a classic exposition on the freedom of the individual. It is also one of Mill's best-known essays. In the first chapter of this work, Mill defines liberty as the nature of the authority that society can have over an individual, as well as its limits. Mill certainly believed that it was easier to restrict actions than opinions. However, his ideas about the limits to the protection of liberty are somewhat narrow by contemporary standards. For instance, in his view such protections did not automatically apply to children or the insane, let alone to members of less civilized societies.

...