Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.76 AVERAGE
3.76 AVERAGE
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
This essay is still extremely relevant today despite its age.
Eccentricity has always abounded when and where strength of character has abounded; and the amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigor, and moral courage which it contained.
It would be pretentious to suggest I dedicated my reading to Ahmed Merabet, yet it would be untrue to exclaim otherwise. We've drowned in debate about liberty this last week. Somehow I regard that as most encouraging. I found Mill’s treatise riveting and incisive along a number of axes which inform our means of government and private life. Mill was a shrewd historian and a brilliant writer. I gasped audibly at his conclusions and deft references. Too often Utilitarianism is wedged into confined spaces for politically conservative purposes. I have no problem with that. I suspect J.S. Mill wouldn't either. His moral remains, we should all disagree, question custom and exercise our faculties at every turn.
It would be pretentious to suggest I dedicated my reading to Ahmed Merabet, yet it would be untrue to exclaim otherwise. We've drowned in debate about liberty this last week. Somehow I regard that as most encouraging. I found Mill’s treatise riveting and incisive along a number of axes which inform our means of government and private life. Mill was a shrewd historian and a brilliant writer. I gasped audibly at his conclusions and deft references. Too often Utilitarianism is wedged into confined spaces for politically conservative purposes. I have no problem with that. I suspect J.S. Mill wouldn't either. His moral remains, we should all disagree, question custom and exercise our faculties at every turn.
I disagree with much/most of what Mill says in this work. I think that fundamentally, he can be attacked on multiple angles. But what I can't dispute is how well-written and coherently-argued this work is. Truly one of the best articulations of a kind of Libertarian social policy that's ever been written.
The thesis being asserted and defended is this:
The crucial point is that Mill believes this can be defended solely on the basis of a kind of broad social utility, without resorting to any conception of natural rights. In other words, abiding by the above principle leads to a better society in the long-run.
He spends about the first half of the work discussing freedom of speech/expression, attacking censorship. He explains that it is wrong to censor ideas because they might be correct.
But that even if we knew for a fact that the ideas were wrong, we still shouldn't censor them. And that in reality, persecuted ideas are usually partly right and partly wrong; they ultimately help us to arrive at the truth.
The second half explains why the above principle applies to actions as equally as to expression. And in the last chapter, Mill addresses some practical application questions that are on the fringes of this idea.
I think Mill can be challenged from several angles. I won't elaborate too much here other than to list them (mainly to help me remember them later):
1. Much of the argument is made with the implicit assumption of moral relativism. That no ideas or philosophies or ways of life are superior than others. To be fair, Mill states pretty clearly that he doesn't believe this himself, and yet he bases multiple arguments on this. I.e. because people across time and space have held varying views on what is right/wrong, it would be absurd for social policy to take a position on this.
2. Related to the above, if we agree that an alcoholic or a drug addict are objectively bad states of being, and not merely bad insofar as they may prevent a person from fulfilling their social obligations, then there is a responsibility to prevent such persons from arising.
3. From an Aristotelian perspective, society ought to have a role in cultivating virtue, as one of its goals (possibly its highest goal.) That necessitates the society taking a position on what the good life is, and adopting general policies to encourage people to discover and become their best potential selves.
4. If we decide to give people 100% control of their lives, and they mess up, what are we to do then? Take as an example, a guy who isn't wearing a motorcycle helmet gets in an accident. It's very difficult to argue—if we had no right to compel him to wear a helmet—that we have any obligation to pay for his healthcare. So do we simply rope people off, saying that, "they chose their consequences?" I don't think most of us want to live in that kind of society.
5. Broadly, Mill is guilty of having too much optimism in human nature. His assumption is that in a marketplace of ideas, the truth will win out. He fails to consider the idea that sometimes falsehoods ("fake news") are simply more attractive if allowed to be asserted on an equal playing field. Similarly (though not directly mentioned), in the competition between fast food—engineered to be tasty and addictive—and vegetables, will people choose to eat the vegetables simply because they're told they're healthier for them? I'm not convinced. For both economic reasons (the money to be made off so-called "sins") and reasons of human nature (laziness, greed, desire, etc), the good life is unable to compete with the power of vices, unless social policy gives the former an advantage over the latter.
6. Following from the above, Mill displays a fairly typical (especially in 19th century writers) though erroneous mindset: he believes in the march of inevitable progress, with any negative developments being temporary at worst. He doesn't take seriously the idea that we may need to fight to preserve the good aspects of our world today, because change often occurs for reasons other than the benefit of society.
7. From a different angle, Mill is vulnerable to the attack that all utilitarians are: If such rights are only based on broad social utility, then they can be superseded at any time also in the name of utility. Rights should be considered more compelling and more sacred than this.
But in general, I like this treatise a lot. It contains several warnings about the overreach of government power that are ominously prescient, for a work published in 1859, of the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century supported by the advance of technology. I especially liked this passage:
All told, an excellent treatise that I very strongly disagree with.
The thesis being asserted and defended is this:
"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is...to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. The only part of the conduct of any one for which he is amenable to society is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over his own body & mind, the individual is sovereign."
The crucial point is that Mill believes this can be defended solely on the basis of a kind of broad social utility, without resorting to any conception of natural rights. In other words, abiding by the above principle leads to a better society in the long-run.
He spends about the first half of the work discussing freedom of speech/expression, attacking censorship. He explains that it is wrong to censor ideas because they might be correct.
But that even if we knew for a fact that the ideas were wrong, we still shouldn't censor them. And that in reality, persecuted ideas are usually partly right and partly wrong; they ultimately help us to arrive at the truth.
The second half explains why the above principle applies to actions as equally as to expression. And in the last chapter, Mill addresses some practical application questions that are on the fringes of this idea.
I think Mill can be challenged from several angles. I won't elaborate too much here other than to list them (mainly to help me remember them later):
1. Much of the argument is made with the implicit assumption of moral relativism. That no ideas or philosophies or ways of life are superior than others. To be fair, Mill states pretty clearly that he doesn't believe this himself, and yet he bases multiple arguments on this. I.e. because people across time and space have held varying views on what is right/wrong, it would be absurd for social policy to take a position on this.
2. Related to the above, if we agree that an alcoholic or a drug addict are objectively bad states of being, and not merely bad insofar as they may prevent a person from fulfilling their social obligations, then there is a responsibility to prevent such persons from arising.
3. From an Aristotelian perspective, society ought to have a role in cultivating virtue, as one of its goals (possibly its highest goal.) That necessitates the society taking a position on what the good life is, and adopting general policies to encourage people to discover and become their best potential selves.
4. If we decide to give people 100% control of their lives, and they mess up, what are we to do then? Take as an example, a guy who isn't wearing a motorcycle helmet gets in an accident. It's very difficult to argue—if we had no right to compel him to wear a helmet—that we have any obligation to pay for his healthcare. So do we simply rope people off, saying that, "they chose their consequences?" I don't think most of us want to live in that kind of society.
5. Broadly, Mill is guilty of having too much optimism in human nature. His assumption is that in a marketplace of ideas, the truth will win out. He fails to consider the idea that sometimes falsehoods ("fake news") are simply more attractive if allowed to be asserted on an equal playing field. Similarly (though not directly mentioned), in the competition between fast food—engineered to be tasty and addictive—and vegetables, will people choose to eat the vegetables simply because they're told they're healthier for them? I'm not convinced. For both economic reasons (the money to be made off so-called "sins") and reasons of human nature (laziness, greed, desire, etc), the good life is unable to compete with the power of vices, unless social policy gives the former an advantage over the latter.
6. Following from the above, Mill displays a fairly typical (especially in 19th century writers) though erroneous mindset: he believes in the march of inevitable progress, with any negative developments being temporary at worst. He doesn't take seriously the idea that we may need to fight to preserve the good aspects of our world today, because change often occurs for reasons other than the benefit of society.
7. From a different angle, Mill is vulnerable to the attack that all utilitarians are: If such rights are only based on broad social utility, then they can be superseded at any time also in the name of utility. Rights should be considered more compelling and more sacred than this.
But in general, I like this treatise a lot. It contains several warnings about the overreach of government power that are ominously prescient, for a work published in 1859, of the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century supported by the advance of technology. I especially liked this passage:
"...The tendency of all the changes taking place in the world is to strengthen society, and diminish the power of the individual, [and] this encroachment is not one of the evils which tend to spontaneously disappear, but, on the contrary, to grow more and more formidable...it is hardly ever kept under restraint by anything but want of power; and as the power is not declining, but growing, unless a strong barrier of moral conviction can be raised against the mischief, we must expect, in the present circumstances of the world, to see it increase."
All told, an excellent treatise that I very strongly disagree with.
A foundational text in liberalism and libertarianism. Mill basically writes like he's defending the Non-Agression Principle, where everyone can do anything they want do long as it doesn't hurt others. He mentions a few exceptions to that rule though, like parents who don't teach their kids enough, and in an interesting example, people who try to sell themselves into slavery.
All in all, this was a high-IQ work defending liberalism. Mill does often favor his own British perspective and is too optimistic about the ability of others to accept liberal ideas. He also claims that China and Asians in general value conformism over individuality, which is a long-standing stereotype. He also discusses how bad Puritans and many Muslim societies are at tolerating religion. Though the whole work comes off like he's an atheist that doesn't take the idea of religious absolutism to be a theologically consistent one.
All in all, this was a high-IQ work defending liberalism. Mill does often favor his own British perspective and is too optimistic about the ability of others to accept liberal ideas. He also claims that China and Asians in general value conformism over individuality, which is a long-standing stereotype. He also discusses how bad Puritans and many Muslim societies are at tolerating religion. Though the whole work comes off like he's an atheist that doesn't take the idea of religious absolutism to be a theologically consistent one.
challenging
inspiring
reflective
fast-paced
Mill is the ultimate advocate for individuality. He thinks everyone should be true to themselves and not follow the crowd. The book has some great points on why you should question more and think for yourself and I'm a big fan of thinking for myself. However, it's horribly dry and a very tough read. I could only get through a few pages in a sitting. It's worth a read, but only in small chunks, unless your able to read sentences with more punctuation marks than words and paragraphs that go on for pages. If you can handle that, then you should fly through this book.
challenging
informative
medium-paced
Much of this essay is about the bounds of liberty for an individual which is relevant in conflicts over masks and vaccines today. The other big component of this essay is about the importance of moral courage and intellectual curiosity to seek out differing opinions than our own in the honest search for truth. Something that was hard in 1850 and feels maybe even harder now which makes it all the more important.
I read this book in college, so my rating is probably not fair one.