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.