Does Utilitarianism Clash with John Stuart Mills Theory of Liberty - Term Paper Example

278189 Does utilitarianism clash with John Stuart Mill’s theory of liberty? Introduction: Through his towering andprofound arguments, J. S. Mill defends individual liberty and individual rights. His “Utilitarianism” has been criticized from many angles. Mill is not disposed of kindly to dogmatism in societies, and firmly asserts that people know their interests better than others. He is contemptuous about the majority rule, but at the same time holds the masses in esteem. He measures the majority rule in the same yardstick of the despotic rule and asserts that both lead to tyranny. The sum and substance of his conclusions are, he defends democracy, skepticism and tradition (this he does at the same time), and liberty but each must avoid dogmatic thinking while operating, and the rights of the individual are sacrosanct. His extraordinary thoughts are difficult to understand, but if grasped as for their correct import, they must provide lots of valuable input for the practicing politicians of the day, as well as to evaluate the works of the thinkers, past and present! It is difficult job for an ordinary reader to try to understand whether his utilitarianism clashes with the theory of liberty; for the intelligent also, it is a tough exercise. Whereas he focuses on the individual and extols freedom, he dubs majority humanity as mediocre. Why the defender of freedom entertains such contradictory ideas? Critics, therefore, dub Mill as one of the most egotistical and arrogant philosophers. Utilitarianism: J. S. Mill was an English philosopher and economist. He wrote Utilitarianism in 1861. This essay propounds a moral and legal theory, with roots in classical philosophy. Its argument is straightforward. “Morality consists in bringing about the best state of affairs, and that the best state of affairs is the state with the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism continues to be an important theory in modern philosophy.” (Spark Notes…) Mill had problems later with his own aversions to say that utilitarianism was too unemotional and that it failed to capture or understand the higher pleasures. His struggle to reconcile Utilitarianism is evident in his later writings but he did not reject utilitarianism as a moral theory. He continued to uphold a more complex version of utilitarianism. Mill defines utilitarianism as a theory based on the principle that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness."(Spark Notes) Happiness according to Mill is pleasure and the absence of pain. Having said this, he elaborates the issue further. “ A passing remark is all that needs to be given to the ignorant blunder or supposing that all those who stand up for utility as the test of right and wrong, use the term in that restricted and nearly colloquial sense in which utility is opposed to pleasure. An apology is due to the philosophical opponents of utilitarianism, for even the momentary appearance of confounding them with anyone capable of so absurd a misconception; which is more extraordinary, inasmuch as the contrary accusation, of referring everything to pleasure and that too in its grossest form, is another of the common charges against utilitarianism.”(Mill J.S. 1993, p, 6) An individual experiences happiness when there are positive thoughts pervading his mental space. Both happiness and sorrow are inter-transmutable. Man being the crown of creation, must have a treasure-chest of pearls of eternal happiness lying dormant in him. Mill hints at it when he says that pleasures that are rooted in one’s higher consciousness should be given more importance than the pleasures of the lower order of the human instincts. Happiness has always been considered by humanity to be the most precious jewel of life. But the standards of happiness of an individual belong to the internal domain. What is it? Is it having a lot of fun and pleasure? Is it being good-looking, renowned, and intelligent? Is it feeing fortunate and highly gratified? It is leading a virtuous and highly intellectual life? Is it being affluent? Mill concludes by stating that utilitarianism coincides with natural sentiments that emanate from human’s social nature. Liberty On liberty Mill expounds his concept of individual freedom as related to his ideas on history and the state. The society, according to Mill progresses from lower to higher stages, which ultimately leads to the emergence of a system representative democracy. It is in this perspective Mill views the growth and development of liberty. In the past, as in ancient Greece and Rome, liberty had a negative connotation. It primarily means protection from tyranny. How much is the society’s power over each individual? That is the barometer to understand the concept of liberty. The concept assumed varied connotations as the time passed, the rulers changed, and their role changed, they began to think themselves as the servants of the people rather than the masters. The concept of majority rule, instead of fostering the concepts of liberty, created new problems. The democratic majority-forces began to impose its will on the minority. Even under the democratic system, the state was not less tyrannical. The minority had to face the state power and public opinion that seeks to stifle individuality and rebellion. The big part of the society became tyrant and tried to inflict its will on the defenseless minority. Mill divided liberty into three types: “First, there is the liberty of thought and opinion. The second type is the liberty of tastes and pursuits, or the freedom to plan our own lives. Third, there is the liberty to join other like-minded individuals for a common purpose that does not hurt anyone. Each of these freedoms negates societys propensity to compel compliance.”(Spark Notes…) To defend liberty of the individual, which is the cherished principle of any democratic country even in the modern era, Mill goes to the extreme. Society has no right to stifle dissent, which according to Mill is the freedom of the individual to air and articulate unpopular views. Censorship in any form is morally wrong Mill terms such activities as illegitimate because they are detrimental to the concept of liberty of the individual. Just because an opinion is popular, it can not be termed as correct. Freedom of opinion is the cornerstone of a perfect society. Just as a flower blooms in the garden freely, and no other flowers have any objection to its growth, freedom and liberty are precious to the free growth of an individual. No legal penalty should be imposed on them and the society should not view them as outcasts. Free ideas are conducive to the real growth of the society. Human thinking process and ideas are fallible, and ideas of the day rejected by the majority, may find acceptance by the people over a period, and such ideas may deliver sterling benefits for the growth of the society. Mill finds no justification for social progress at the cost of personal progress. Can an individual behave and function in an absolutely carefree manner, without honoring the social norms that are necessary for the smooth functioning of the society? Can society curtail individual liberty under certain circumstances? Any effort in this direction needs to be voluntary, according to Mill. He rules out the concept of the social contract and the authority of the society over the people just because it offers certain forms of protection. But his approach is cautionary when he asserts that people need to function in a responsible manner, and each member of the society must defend and protect society and fellow members from harm, which means the society needs to be empowered to curtail behavior the people that harms others. But nothing more; the parameters need to be strictly followed. “All that makes existence valuable to anyone depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of other people. Some rules of conduct therefore, must be imposed.” (Mill, J.S, 1998, p, 9). Mill tries his best to strike the balance between the powers of the state and individual liberty. The scale of justice seems to tilt in favour of the individual. State is a responsive organisation. State exists on account of the individuals. No individuals, no state! His twofold argument is individuals are not answerable to society for actions and behavior that affect only them. If such behaviour hurts others, works to the detrimental effect of the society, the state needs to intervene, provide proper punishment for the erroneous act and see that such acts are not repeated. Mill has a dilemma here! Certain actions harm others, but they fetch greater good of the society. His doctrine needs to be understood with such limitations. The action that which produces most happiness is the best—this is the view espoused by Mill as per his Utilitarianism. One has to step-down from the ladder of logic and become a poet to understand the mind of Mill, as he tries to find an amicable solution to the clash of liberty and utilitarianism. Mill says, “Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest” (Mill J.S.,1998,p17.) He defends freedom of thought, action and association. So far as the contentious issues belong to the domain of mind, no problems about them! The debate on differences of opinions was always at the mind-level and they will continue. For every argument there is a counter-argument. The problem with Mill is about the issues that transcend the mind barrier. For example, the revelations in the Bible! The Christian Society will not accept any anti-views about the contents of this holy book. Bible, being the revelation of Lord Jesus Christ, its contents is unquestionable. Mill’s position that the truth is best demonstrated as such by defeating the views of the opponents through a debate, and not by repression, will not hold good here. If a question is asked, which scores better in the match between utilitarianism and liberty, one has to admit that the match ends in a draw. Mill chooses not to provide a clear cut answer favouring one over the other. His strength is he is much ahead of his time. Sometimes it appears he goes two steps forward, only to come one step backward. He argues for equality of women, not a small achievement as per the social conditions prevailing during his time. At the same time, his firm view is people need to have differential voting power, according to different yardsticks, for example education! Mill’s efforts to explain the concepts of Liberty, land him in fresh trouble and more confusion. Liberty is essential to ensure progress of the individual and society—agreed! He takes the reader to the state of fantasy (because that state is not an attainable reality), when he mentions that the society becomes more important than the state. Here he avers that the form of the state is a representative democracy where there is no opposition between the rulers and the ruled. The rulers represent in the strictest sense, the interests of the ruled. In such ideal conditions liberty of the individual is possible, but whether such ideal behavioral equilibrium in the day to day dispositions of all the people of the state is ever possible? It looks as though Mill is imagining about some celestial world! Turn any page of history—did such relations of perfect harmony ever exist between the state and its subjects? Assuming that an individual is totally liberated from the clutches of the state in all forms, and is totally free to act on his volition, Mill introduces the possibility of repression of a different kind. A select and powerful few will in all probability, threaten individual liberty in a new way. What if a more powerful and confident majority takes over the task of repression, hitherto conducted by the state? How to impose limits on the individual liberty and at the same seek freedom of the individual from such limits? Utilitarianism conflicts with liberty in view of the ‘harm principle’, which may not assure the anticipated greatest happiness. It does not assure adequate protection for individual rights, as everything can not be measured by the same standard and the concepts of happiness vary from individual to individual. Happiness in theory and practical happiness are poles apart. An individual’s fundamental interest is a debatable issue. It can not be explained by fitting it into a fixed frame. It would be perfect for anyone to commit suicide according to Mill, because one is enjoying and implementing one’s rights, and such an individual does not have an overriding obligation to the family and friends. The position changes entirely if the same individual is the father of young children and one is bound to look after them. The liberty to kill oneself gets extinct and the society is justified in intervening to stop such an individual from the suicide intent. Conclusion: Greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number! Well argued! Mill tries to dive into another pool to seek happiness for humanity by stating that perfect happiness can only be attained in a civilized society (by perfect human beings, but where are they!), where people can pursue their interests, without any hindrance from any corner, and they can pursue it by applying all their skills and capabilities, which they have acquired through a good system of education. “For Mill, a civilized person is the one who acts on what he or she understands and who does everything in his or her power to understand…. and advocates individual initiative over social control. He asserts that things done by individuals are done better than those done by governments. Moreover, individual action advances the mental education of that individual, something that government action cannot ever do for government action always poses a threat to liberty and must be carefully watched. “(Spark Notes…) Utilitarianism and liberty come to loggerheads at this stage. Where such a state of liberty can ever promised to an individual? Is it not simply a utopian dream? Can history provide any such example? Yet Mill argues that particular truths can have meaning, but one may not know the principles behind them. Therefore, he avers that this unrecognized standard is the principle of utility that promises the greatest happiness. He explains the deep influence of utilitarianism in the evolution of the moral doctrines. What are the ultimate objectives of an individual? What are the ultimate ends? The individual may not know about them; the government that governs that individual can never judge it. Mill makes a valiant effort to the defense of utilitarianism when he states that the standard to judge an act is the happiness of all and not of the agent alone. About the exceptions, Mill states that the need for exceptions is not something uncommon. It embraces the reality of human life. Having a standard of utility to depend upon is better than to function without any set standard. ========== Works Cited: Mill, J.S (Author) Williams, G (Author) Book: Utilitarianism, on Liberty (Everymans Library) Paperback: 528 pages Publisher: Everyman Paperbacks (October 15, 1993) Language: English ISBN-10: 0460873466 ISBN-13: 978-0460873468 Mill, J.S.1998: Book: On Liberty and other Essays, Oxford University Press, New York, 2nd Edition, 632 pages, ISBN.0-19-283384-7 SparkNotes: John Stuart Mill: On Liberty A summary of On Liberty in John Stuart Mill. Retrieved on March 8, 2009 Read More