John Stuart Mill

The next entry to History of Political Philosophy is Henry M. Magid’s essay on John Stuart Mill, one of the most important philosophers of the liberal order during the 19^th century and son of James Mill. One of the most important things to remember about Mill is that while he is a utilitarian like his father, he attempted to make several major reforms to that system. In particular, Mill wanted to present a broader view of the basis of human action in utilitarianism. This was done in order to address Macaulay’s critique of utilitarianism that saw utilitarianism in error because it presented an overly simplistic conception of human action that grounded it entirely in the desire for behavior. For Mill, Macaulay’s critique of utilitarianism should lead to a reform of the system, not its overthrow.

            One of the more important aspects of Mill’s thought is his writing on epistemology. For Mill, there are three kinds of deduction. These are as follows: 1) direct, 2) concrete, and 3) inverse. Because of this, there are four methods of gaining knowledge, all of which are seen as concrete even though they are applicable to different service matters. These four methods are as follows: 1) induction proper,  which Mill calls the Chemical method and establishes causal laws by comparing specifically observed cases using the cannons of induction; 2) direct deduction, which Mill calls the Geometric method and argues by syllogistic reasoning from first principles to less general laws; 3) concrete deduction, which Mill calls the Physical method and infers the laws of effects not from one causal law, but from a number of the, taken together and considers all the causes which influence the effect and comparing their laws with one another; and finally 4) inverse deduction, which Mill calls the Historical method and develops empirical laws of society on the basis if induction and then to “verify” those laws by deducing them from the a priori laws of human nature.

            Mill then goes on to state that there two branches of social science and both are needed in order to complete social science. These two branches are as follows: 1) the first branch supposes that conditions remain the same, but that new are different factors or agents are introduced. Political Economy is included in this first branch. 2) The second branch addresses how the conditions themselves change. The Philosophy of History is included in the second branch. Mill also sees the Philosophy of History as being important as it helps humans understand and make progress. This is important as Mill sees progress and possible and desirable but rejects the notion that progress is inevitable. The Philosophy of History also ties into the young Mill’s idea of there being two basic stages of society. These stages are as follows: 1) the natural state where those best fit to govern actually govern and 2) the transitional state where someone other than those best fit to govern actually govern.

            It should also be noted that Mill has an idealistic as opposed to materialistic conception of social progress, which leads him to see a society’s intellect and scientific progress as a sign of advancement. This is important as in his moral theory Mill accepts basic utilitarian assumptions but attempts to reformulate them in order to present a picture of humans as being elevated from animals. With this move, Mill elevates intellectual pleasure over physical pleasure. There are three connections between this and Mill’s political philosophy. These connections are as follows: 1) a society in which people peruse higher pleasures is seen as superior to a society in which people pursue lower pleasures; 2) the move towards higher pleasures requires freedom, so only free societies can be truly civilized; and 3) the pursuit of higher pleasures leads to higher human achievement.

            Mill takes a new path on the government by convention/ government by nature debate as he see both approached unsatisfactory as if government is made purely by convention than unlimited choice is possible, but if government is made by nature, then no choice is possible. For Mill, government is to bring about the order that helps move progress along. Furthermore, the distinction between progress and order is rooted in the two natures of humans. Government though is not merely to enforce order, but is also to create the conditions needed to bring about progress such as education.

 This focus on progress leads Mill to two options in forming the best government. These options are as follows: 1) representative democracy and 2) benevolent despot. Though Mill thinks it’s possible for a benevolent despot to form the best government, he ultimately finds such a situation unlikely due to nature and the lessons of history. Thus, the only real option for Mill is representative democracy, but to this is makes several key changes on how this is to function. Mill does not want the elected representative to govern, but rather is looks to technocratic experts to do this, while ultimate ruling authority still resides in the democratic process. In sort, the people elect their representatives who in turn chose the technocratic experts to run the government. For Mill, it is essential to create a balance between the governing body and the representative body as too powerful of a representative body may lack the talent to properly govern, a problem that Mill sees as being inherent in monarchy and aristocracy. Likewise, too powerful of a governing body can suppress freedom. 

For Mill, the more traditional, majoritarian conception of democracy can devolve into tyranny of the majority. Because of this, each part of society must be equally represented. Because Mill rejects the inevitability of progress, representative democracy is seen as the best form of government but is not a utopia. Furthermore, representative democracy faces a constant threat of regression. It is also only for more advanced civilizations as for Mill, his theory of liberty is only applicable to higher levels of civilization. In this, liberty is conceived in a practical, consequentialist as liberty is valued because it is best able to promote happiness of the individual. This is not so say liberty is to be unlimited as Mill recognizes there needs to be some limits on liberty as abstract noninterference with individuals can only promote anarchy. This though only applies to actions as thought and expression are both grated absolute freedom. Freedom of discussion though requires that all participants play by certain rules in order to create a more robust conception of discussion. For Mill as a general rule, restrictions on freedoms should be not implemented in so far as the action in question causes no harm to others.     

Alexis De Tocqueville

The next entry to History of Political Philosophy is Marvin Zetterbaum’s essay on Alexis De Tocqueville, one of the first philosophers to fully address the American experiment. Though included in History of Political Philosophy and very much a philosopher in the lose sense, Tocqueville is also an early sociologists, rooting his study of politics on what the effects democracy as a first principle as well as social conditions had on a people. Tocqueville’s focus on social conditions, though not a master key to understand society is still a highly important aspect of this task. Social conditions and first principles are deeply connected as in democratic societies, the social condition regards equality as a first principle. Humans have the power to determine the first principles of the society they live in, but not the outcome of these conditions. This is important as it suggests that Tocqueville is neither a hard determinist nor a metaphysical libertarian. There is also some elements of historical inevitability here as Tocqueville sees democracy as eventually triumphing over slavery.

One thing that should be noted though is that even though democracy has equality as a first principle, this is not an absolute equality of material conditions. Rather, what is meant by “equality” here is legal equality. It is also important to remember that Tocqueville is not completely uncritical of democracy has he does see atomism, the dislocation of individuals from society as a possible effect of democracy. This ties in closely with what Tocqueville identifies as the three codes of a class-based society democracy has over turned. These three codes are as follows: 1)The barriers separating the classes have been toppled, 2) Property has been divided and equalized, and 3) new centers of social, intellectual, and political achievement have been opened to all. For all the problems class-based societies had, they were able to maintain great social bonds, but the loss of these aspects of class-based society under democracy have caused a loss of these social bonds. Because society cannot last for long without some social bonds, democratic societies must reformulate these bonds under a new democratic framework. This needs to be done as atomization runs the risk of people falling into self-absorption which will itself lead to mediocrity and soft tyranny. Another possible development of atomization is that people may begin to live without constraints.      

Overall though, Tocqueville does have a positive perception of democracy as he sees the horrors of the French Revolution as being only temporary and not characteristic of democracy, but rather of revolution. Because of this, French Revolutionary horrors are not a challenge to democracy. For Tocqueville, the true challenges to democracy are much more subtle. Commerce is seen as both a major benefit and as a major problem of democracy as while it brings great wealth and freedom, it can also lead to the development of a new aristocracy. This is important as it diminishes equality. For Tocqueville, one of the reasons equality is to be valued is because equality allows for the development of more sympathy as the more people are seen as alike, the more empathy they will have for one another.

Still, Tocqueville is well aware that democracy has the power to establish tyranny just as easily as it has freedom. Because of this, the passion of democracy must be restrained for the good of democracy as passions such as equality can lead to tyranny. Likewise, majorities must be restrained or the tyranny of the majority can develop. Though democracy has these problems, any attempt to solve these problems must take place in the general framework of democracy. One example of this is that radical individualism can only be solved through the participation in voluntary organizations. Because of this general principle, Tocqueville also champions the idea of federalism and champions local governance as this is seen as a proper channel for individualism. Likewise, this is why Tocqueville sees freedom of association as the most important freedom as this freedom can create an independent citizenry which also helps them to be better engaged in democracy. Democratic governance is seen as needed self-interest, but this must be a self-interest properly understood. The idea of “self-interest properly understood” is important because following from Hobbes, Tocqueville sees humans as being primarily a self-interested creature.

Religion is championed by Tocqueville as it is seen as embodying the best aspects of democracy while putting a check on its worst aspects. Freedom is seen as being grounded in morality and morality is seen as being grounded in religion. Even false religions still are seen as being able to perform these positive social functions. This does not mean Tocqueville is suggesting a strong Church-state partnership as religion needs to be separate from politics in order to get its full benefits. This is important as democracy is seen as being grounded in natural rights and is also seen as leading to a greater universalization of these rights. Because of this then, religion has an important part to play in the triumph of democracy over slavery.   

Georg F.W. Hegel

Representing the only entry to History of Political Philosophy to be written in a language other than English and then translated, Pierre Hasser focuses his essay, translated by Allan Bloom on Georg F.W. Hegel, who is perhaps the most influential philosopher of the post-Kantian era. Though Hegel had many writings, Hasser mostly focuses on his Philosophy of Right where Hegel lays out his conception of the ideal state. This ideal state is seen as the product of both eternal Reason and universal history. Another important book Hasser draws from is Hegel’s Lectures on the Philosophy of History.

Regardless, the state is a highly important element of Hegel’s thought as it is only through the state that the individual can come to his/her true reality and it is also only by the state that the individual can come to the universal. It should be noted that by “state” Hegel does not mean an actually existing state or states, but rather an ideal state. Hegel’s state, though representing the final end for humanity, it does not become divine. Despite his talk of the “ideal state” Hegel does not abandon the practical as he thinks politics, the actually existing state, and the ideal state must all be embraced.

Also important for Hegel is the idea of development, as it is through this development that the irrational can become the rational. Hegel’s state is also a product of this development and much like the human body; the state brings about unity to disjointed parts. Ultimately this development is linked to conflict. For Hegel, conflict is prior to the state and has its origins in the conflict between the master and the slave. It is though the conflict of the master and the slave that the worlds of the abstract and the practical are built. The state is seen as being founded to help end this conflict. In the state, all conflicts are seen as being rooted in the tension between the individual’s will and his/her status in the state.

In Hegel’s state, the human will to freedom can become a meaningful reality. This is an important point as for Hegel, the reason why states of the past were unable to do this and in fact often became very tyrannical was because they were not fully universalized and were thus subject to ruin. Ultimately, Hegel’s state will bring about the synthesis between liberty and order, a process that Hegel sees as being completed by the historical process. History is one of the most central processes for Hegel’s thought, particularly as it relates to the development of freedom, For Hegel, freedom has become known in history through three stages. These stages are as follows: 1) The Oriental stage, where one is free, 2) The Greco-Roman stage, where some are free, and 3) The Germanic stage, where all are free. In keeping with his idea of the historical development of freedom, Hegel sees Christianity as bringing the potential for freedom in the Greco-Roman world while the Germanic world would actualize this freedom, an act that was more specifically completed by the rise of Protestantism. Of particular importance for Hegel was the Protestant abolishment of the distinction between priests and the laity. Hegel also sees Protestantism as leading to the secularization of Christianity. What Hegel meant by this is that Christian ethics have now been fully introduced to the state while the state officially remained purely in the temporal realm.

Furthermore, though the state laws should be rational, Hegel still recognizes a social and historical basis for these laws and is thus very prudent in his application of universal rationality to the laws of existing states, which means that while no existing state can fully live up to his ideal, Hegel does and can recognize many positive aspects of existing states. Hegel particularly admires Prussia for its ability to represent both revolutionary exinges (as seen in its Protestantism) and traditional order (as seen in its monarchism). For Hegel, the modern state requires three elements. These elements are as follows: 1) rational law, 2) government, and 3) sentiment or morals. In keeping with his general trend of combining elements of revolution and conservatism, Hegel notes that Plato was guilty or only embracing the last two while the liberals and revolutionaries are guilty of only embracing the first one. For Hegel, the challenge that lays before humanity now is to embrace all three.

In keeping with his tripartite trend, Hegel also notes that there are three stages of education. These stages are as follows: 1) the family, 2) civil society, and 3) the state. The family and civil society are both seen as distinct from the state due to their particularity. The family does exist in unity and is a model for the state, but because this unity is based in the immediate rather than in rationality, it is seen as being below the state. Likewise, though civil society increases particularity, Hegel also sees it as allowing humans to better understand formal universality. This is important as for Hegel right requires the movement from the particular to the universal. This does not mean things rooted in the particular are bad as though the family and social groups are rooted in the particular, they help humans better understand the universal through development.

Hegel’s tripartite scheme continues on class as Hegel identifies three distinct classes. These classes are as follows: 1) the agrarian class, 2) the civil servant class, and 3) the industrial class. Because the agrarian class and the civil servant class are rooted in the family and the state respectively, it is only the industrial class according to Hegel that is essentially orientated towards the particular. Because of this, Hegel sees government regulation of industry as being required in order to prevent social degradation. Connecting to this is Hegel ideal construction of the state, which also contains three parts. These parts are as follows: 1) the legislature, which as the power to determine and establish the universal, 2) the executive, which as the power to bring the particular under the rule of the universal, and 3) the crown, where ultimate authority lies and is also seen as representing the unity of the state. Under this conception, civil service becomes elevated because it is seen as a universalized, democratic class as it is open to all classes. The civil service is thus based on merit, which Hegel thinks will bring about greater unity. Likewise, the legislature is seen as a reflection of the social order of society and should be grounded in the agrarian class as that class as being the most attune to the importance of order. Despite this focus though, other classes such as the industrial class are also represented.      

Hegel’s move to recognize both freedom and order causes him to accept many instances of freedom, but only in limited application. One particular way this can be seen is through Hegel’s ideas of freedom of communication, for while he generally supports it, he also sees some instances when censorship is appropriate. Likewise, equality is recognized, but only in a limited application of it as only equality before the law is seen as needed Social equality is not recognized under Hegel’s scheme.

Hegel sees war as a way of bringing about the fullness of the state and thus rejects Kant’s perpetual peace. Hegel also rejects international law, as without a state to guide it, Hegel sees international law as an incompetent method of bringing about peace. For Hegel, international law will always be rooted in the particular, never the universal. Wars are also seen as carrying with them an historic mission of the universal spirit and brings this spirit into eventual actualization. When this process is combined with “The End of History” an unusual development occurs on the matter of war and historical development as war is seen as both moving history, yet will also be abolished by it.

On one last point, Hegel’s state is seen as being open to all, but it is still founded on European and Protestant principles as these principles are seen as completing the universal project. As such, Europe must spread these principles to Asia just as they did previously to the Americas. As soon as this process is complete, Hegel’s project can at last be fully universalized and actualized.   

Jeremy Bentham and James Mill

For his entry to History of Political Thought, Timothy Fuller turns to two philosophers heavily connected with the foundation of one of the most important ethical systems in the modern era. The philosophers in question are Jeremy Bentham and James Mill. Despite the name of both men being in the title, Fuller spends very little time discussing Mill; instead spending most of the essay discussing Bentham’s views and only bringing up Mill at the end.

Still, one of the most important elements of Bentham’s thought to keep in mind is that he grounds his conception of morality in whether or not the consequences of that action are good or bad, with the conception of “good” being grounded in pleasure and the conception of ‘bad” being grounded in pain. As a result of this, morality becomes rooted in improvement of conditions through knowledge. By focusing on the development of knowledge, Bentham attempted to develop a scientific conception of morality, which means the actions of humans may be subjected to calculation and then have moral worth placed on those actions.

Bentham’s focus on science also has major implications on Bentham’s attitude toward legislation. Legislation based on tradition and custom is to be disregarded in favor of legislation based on scientific principles as these principles can best reveal what is pleasurable, and thus what is good. Here Bentham is displaying a clear influence of the Cartesian method as this method would enable him to step away from everything except for the pure principles that he wanted. Perhaps not surprisingly, this also caused him to reject the English common law tradition as for Bentham, this was a tradition based on an ignorance of scientific principles. Nor that those principles had been established, the English common law tradition in Bentham’s view could be done away with and replaced with a new, more scientific method of creating law.

Though the highly situational nature of Bentham’s theory has caused many to see both him and utilitarianism as an example of moral relativism, it is important to point out that while what is moral or immoral can change greatly depending upon the particular conditions, at the heart of his theory is an attempt to establish an universal basis for all moral decision making. What’s more, according to Bentham, historical conditions can still be taken into account, but these considerations cannot veto scientific morality.

Still, it is true particular conditions are highly important for Bentham as poor conditions can distract from a person’s individual will. The importance of conditions also factors into Bentham’s conception of happiness as happiness is not seen as being something in the abstract, but is rather deeply rooted in conditions. Despite Bentham’s focus on pleasure, happiness, and individualism, it should be noted that goodness is not seen as an absolute or left up to individuals. Rather, goodness for Bentham is grounded in what is good for the greatest number. Because of this, society becomes defined by the conflict between the rights of the individuals and the needs of the community. In order to help alleviate some of this conflict, Bentham also proposes a new justice system that focuses on rewards for doing right rather than on punishment for doing wrong.

Considering the importance of utilitarian thought on 19^th century liberalism, it is unsurprising that economic liberalism, intellectual freedom, and religious tolerance are all seen as essential for a utilitarian order. Utilitarianism also reflects another 19^th century liberal goal as Bentham hoped to create a long lasting balance between liberty and order through his theory. Bentham’s theory is still detached from society as Bentham sees this as essential to being able to understand what is truly the greatest good for the greatest number. Utilitarianism then presents itself as a neutral framework. In order to achieve this, Bentham suggests a radical reconstructuring of society in order to put it more in tune with utilitarian ethical principles as it was only though this that society would be able to fully understand utility. For Bentham, utility means that there is a greater focus on current conditions than on abstract principles in order to establish the moral worth of an action. Cooperation also plays a major role in Bentham’s theory as this is seen as key in avoiding both anarchy and despotism. It also helps us avoid a self-centered conception of the greater good. Though cooperation, utility could be fully incorporated into moral decision making. One of the major implications cooperation has is that the incensement of pleasure and the reduction of pain are seen as the chief moral drives, particularly for the legislature.

It is now that Fuller turns to Bentham’s chief disciple, James Mill. For Mill, his chief goal was to put Bentham’s theory in practice and as a result of this desire, proposed a series of reforms. Mill rejected the old democracy/ aristocracy/ monarchy categories of government as he found them all to be severely lacking. He ultimately proposes that a mixed government be used, but even here there is a very real danger of the aristocratic and monarchial elements of this mixed regime conspiring against the democratic elements. Thus, for Mill, the proper government should be grounded in democracy while monarchy and aristocracy are used to keep democratic excesses in check. One of the checks Mill proposes here is the use of voter qualifications. Still, monarchy and aristocracy are to be used for purely utilitarian ends and have no real value in and of themselves. This restrained form of democracy is to be used as it is seen as being best able to conceptualize the greatest good and also be rooted in scientific calculation, thus creating the most pleasurable outcome for the greatest number of people.