NationStates Jolt Archive

I enquire as to what people think of John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty.” I refer to critical discussion, not “I like his conclusion its libertarian like me.” I feel it is a very good book, but I don’t think it proves what it set outs to.

“The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. 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 himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”

This concept is often called the “Harm Principle” and is often associated with libertarian thought.

“It is proper to state that I forego any advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right, as a thing independent of utility. I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being. Those interests, I contend, authorize the subjection of individual spontaneity to external control, only in respect to those actions of each, which concern the interest of other people. If any one does an act hurtful to others, there is a primâ facie case for punishing him, by law, or, where legal penalties are not safely applicable, by general disapprobation. There are also many positive acts for the benefit of others, which he may rightfully be compelled to perform; such as, to give evidence in a court of justice; to bear his fair share in the common defence, or in any other joint work necessary to the interest of the society of which he enjoys the protection; and to perform certain acts of individual beneficence, such as saving a fellow-creature's life, or interposing to protect the defenceless against ill-usage, things which whenever it is obviously a man's duty to do, he may rightfully be made responsible to society for not doing. A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury. The latter case, it is true, requires a much more cautious exercise of compulsion than the former.”

What makes John Stuart Mill so fascinating to me is that he doesn’t look to social contract or rights theory to support his conclusion. Mill was not a libertarian, but a utilitarian; seeking to promote the greatest good for the greatest number. He has no interest in rights, liberty or equality; as but stepping stones to what he perceives as the great goal of utility. If one could clearly show Mill that his principle would not in fact lead to grand happiness, then it seems he would have to reject the so-called Harm Principle. Also what makes the utilitarian conclusion different from that of a true utilitarian is the positive claims against people and not just the usual libertarian negative ones.

So what does everyone think of On Liberty and the Harm Principle? What is your favourite quote?

Of particular interest:
Is Mill right that the Harm Principle maximises social utility and does the make this argument?
Is utility a worthwhile premise on which to build society?

“ If all mankind minus were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

My favourite quote from On Liberty is at the beginning of chapter 4

Cruelty of disposition; malice and ill-nature; that most anti-social and odious of all passions, envy; dissimulation and insincerity, irascibility on insufficient cause, and resentment disproportioned to the provocation; the love of domineering over others; the desire to engross more than one's share of advantages (the of the Greeks); the pride which derives gratification from the abasement of others; the egotism which thinks self and its concerns more important than everything else, and decides all doubtful questions in its own favour;—these are moral vices, and constitute a bad and odious moral character: unlike the self-regarding faults previously mentioned, which are not properly immoralities, and to whatever pitch they may be carried, do not constitute wickedness.

Why is this my favourite quote? Because it has 11 commas, and two colons/semicolons, and a pair of parentheses, AND it doesn't say anything, which makes it the absolute perfect example of Mill's unbelieveably irritating style of writing (subordinate clauses within subordinate clauses).

I think my real favourite quote though has to be
The "people" who exercise the power, are not always the same people with those over whom it is exercised, and the "self-government" spoken of, is not the government of each by himself, but of each by all the rest. "

In answer to your other questions, I think that Mill's arguement for free speech is probably the most convincing one that exists. With the modifications presented in chapter 5, its gains appeal as well as internal consistancy. I think you'd probably have to appeal to some meta/transient nature of truth to dismiss it.

Very good choice of quote. And your right that he makes a very powerful arguement for freedom of speech, on the grounds of utility.

Mill tends to place the individual above the group far too often for my tastes.

I don't think thats a fair criticism. Mill is all for groups, but he argues you shouldn't be compelled to them. In fact he argues you shouldn't be compelled to be part of ordinary society for the good of society (and not your own good). If you could show Mill that it would be best for society to sacrifice an innocent person, he'd say do it.

I enquire as to what people think of John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty.” I refer to critical discussion, not “I like his conclusion its libertarian like me.” I feel it is a very good book, but I don’t think it proves what it set outs to.

“The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. 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 himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”

This concept is often called the “Harm Principle” and is often associated with libertarian thought.

“It is proper to state that I forego any advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right, as a thing independent of utility. I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being. Those interests, I contend, authorize the subjection of individual spontaneity to external control, only in respect to those actions of each, which concern the interest of other people. If any one does an act hurtful to others, there is a primâ facie case for punishing him, by law, or, where legal penalties are not safely applicable, by general disapprobation. There are also many positive acts for the benefit of others, which he may rightfully be compelled to perform; such as, to give evidence in a court of justice; to bear his fair share in the common defence, or in any other joint work necessary to the interest of the society of which he enjoys the protection; and to perform certain acts of individual beneficence, such as saving a fellow-creature's life, or interposing to protect the defenceless against ill-usage, things which whenever it is obviously a man's duty to do, he may rightfully be made responsible to society for not doing. A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury. The latter case, it is true, requires a much more cautious exercise of compulsion than the former.”

What makes John Stuart Mill so fascinating to me is that he doesn’t look to social contract or rights theory to support his conclusion. Mill was not a libertarian, but a utilitarian; seeking to promote the greatest good for the greatest number. He has no interest in rights, liberty or equality; as but stepping stones to what he perceives as the great goal of utility. If one could clearly show Mill that his principle would not in fact lead to grand happiness, then it seems he would have to reject the so-called Harm Principle. Also what makes the utilitarian conclusion different from that of a true utilitarian is the positive claims against people and not just the usual libertarian negative ones.

So what does everyone think of On Liberty and the Harm Principle? What is your favourite quote?

Of particular interest:
Is Mill right that the Harm Principle maximises social utility and does the make this argument?
Is utility a worthwhile premise on which to build society?

“ If all mankind minus were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
You do realize that Kant holds a much more libertarian viewpoint than Stuart does right?

Yes, but I never said Mill was really a libertarian, or that I wanted to show a libertarian arguement. I only said that Mill's harm principle is often labelled libertarian.

I enquire as to what people think of John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty.” I refer to critical discussion, not “I like his conclusion its libertarian like me.” I feel it is a very good book, but I don’t think it proves what it set outs to.

“The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. 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 himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”

This concept is often called the “Harm Principle” and is often associated with libertarian thought.

“It is proper to state that I forego any advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right, as a thing independent of utility. I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being. Those interests, I contend, authorize the subjection of individual spontaneity to external control, only in respect to those actions of each, which concern the interest of other people. If any one does an act hurtful to others, there is a primâ facie case for punishing him, by law, or, where legal penalties are not safely applicable, by general disapprobation. There are also many positive acts for the benefit of others, which he may rightfully be compelled to perform; such as, to give evidence in a court of justice; to bear his fair share in the common defence, or in any other joint work necessary to the interest of the society of which he enjoys the protection; and to perform certain acts of individual beneficence, such as saving a fellow-creature's life, or interposing to protect the defenceless against ill-usage, things which whenever it is obviously a man's duty to do, he may rightfully be made responsible to society for not doing. A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury. The latter case, it is true, requires a much more cautious exercise of compulsion than the former.”

I must ask, what control mechanisms are in place to prevent utilitariaism from allowing government to put preventive measures in place to prevent its people from reforming the system if necessary? Either through peaceful or violent revolution.

If he does not value rights held by citizens, what is the point in promoting utilitarianisim if it only allows for the REMOVAL of the rights I have? If such is the case, screw his concepts of "liberty".

Its just an essay to promote more Orwellian security in my opinion.

In a speech and debate competition I was in recently the harm principle and Mills ideas were pretty all that was talked about. The debate was about putting restrictions on immigrants and if that was consistent with democratic ideals. Both people for restrictions and against used his harm principle. I draw two conclusions from this. Mills is one of the most important philosophers of democracy and his argument can be construed many ways. I do not think you could go as far as saying it advocates "Orwellian security" though.

I don't think thats a fair criticism. Mill is all for groups, but he argues you shouldn't be compelled to them. In fact he argues you shouldn't be compelled to be part of ordinary society for the good of society (and not your own good). If you could show Mill that it would be best for society to sacrifice an innocent person, he'd say do it.
Granted it's been awhile since I read Mill, but I don't remember his being in favor of much of anything "for the good of society" when said "good" would impinge upon the right of the individual to independence of action.

Mill doesn't specifically state control mechanisms, merely suggesting that the harm principle is the limit of just government, anything more is unjust. Mill is talking about what is right, not how to protect what is right. Any control mechanisms on a utilitarian state would probably be those on any other state.

Mill thinks of rights not as rights, but artificial constructs that we make up because we want things. Benetham goes further calling the idea of rights "dangerous nonsense". These rights are percieved as just myths, foolish sentmentality on the part of liberal types.

It definitely isn't an essay supporting Orwellian security, as he is arguing for a minimum state, not a tyrannical one.

Granted it's been awhile since I read Mill, but I don't remember his being in favor of much of anything "for the good of society" when said "good" would impinge upon the right of the individual to independence of action.
Mill was a utilitarian, he never hid this; although didn't state it clearly. Although he never openly stated sacrificing an individual for the good of society, this was only because he believed that sacrificing individuals isn't good for society.

To quote from the book:
"It is proper to state that I forego any advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right, as a thing independent of utility. I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being."

In a speech and debate competition I was in recently the harm principle and Mills ideas were pretty all that was talked about. The debate was about putting restrictions on immigrants and if that was consistent with democratic ideals. Both people for restrictions and against used his harm principle. I draw two conclusions from this. Mills is one of the most important philosophers of democracy and his argument can be construed many ways. I do not think you could go as far as saying it advocates "Orwellian security" though.

No, I read over it again. From what I read, all that can be used by the government to promote security, and only remove further the ability for a people to reform contrary to the people's opinion in charge, or be independent of and from a government action and legislation under circumstances. Even if they are necessary actions to promote reform.

This "harm priniple" is good for something such as debate, but in all around it is meant for security measures. Something soccer moms promote because they are overprotective, something however rural folks whom have to live on our own by our own means have to put up with to protect city residents because they tend to always need people and government to do things for them. Even to prevent them from tossing toasters in their tub.

I have to disagree here. I think darwinism has better points on many occasions than Mill under certain cases.

And you can tell Mill to **** off. I'm keeping my gun, kthnx.

No, I read over it again. From what I read, all that can be used by the government to promote security, and only remove further the ability for a people to reform contrary to the people's opinion in charge, or be independent of and from a government action and legislation under circumstances. Even if they are necessary actions to promote reform.

This "harm priniple" is good for something such as debate, but in all around it is meant for security measures. Something soccer moms promote because they are overprotective, something however rural folks whom have to live on our own by our own means have to put up with to protect city residents because they tend to always need people and government to do things for them. Even to prevent them from tossing toasters in their tub.

I have to disagree here. I think darwinism has better points on many occasions than Mill under certain cases.

And you can tell Mill to **** off. I'm keeping my gun, kthnx.
Mill doesn't want your gun. He just doesn't want you shooting people with it.
And what good is an unprotective government! Mill is one step away from arguing for anarchy.

Mill is one step away from arguing for anarchy.
Which is probably why I have a kind of visceral mistrust of him.

Which is probably why I have a kind of visceral mistrust of him.
Your just letting your weak sentimentality get in the way of the greater good.

And I may have overstated the anarchy part.

Mill doesn't want your gun. He just doesn't want you shooting people with it.
And what good is an unprotective government! Mill is one step away from arguing for anarchy.

Yes, because I'm taking a break from killing people with my legally held gun to talk politics on the internet. I know its wrong, but damned these modern violent video games and satan telling me to KILL EVERYBODY WITH MY SECOND AMMENDMENT RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

And the government's purpose is not to baby everybody. It is to provide for the common good and protection for its people.

When I say protection however, I mean REAL protection. From foreign threats such as an invasion. Not, you can't smoke weed because people are probably going to die.

To hell with Mill. He's a good writer, but him and his cronies needs to jump aboard the concept of real independence and limited government however.

Yes, because I'm taking a break from killing people with my legally held gun to talk politics on the internet. I know its wrong, but damned these modern violent video games and satan telling me to KILL EVERYBODY WITH MY SECOND AMMENDMENT RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

And the government's purpose is not to baby everybody. It is to provide for the common good and protection for its people.

When I say protection however, I mean REAL protection. From foreign threats such as an invasion. Not, you can't smoke weed because people are probably going to die.

To hell with Mill. He's a good writer, but him and his cronies needs to jump aboard the concept of real independence and limited government however.
Mill would probably agree with everything you just said, if it wasn't the case he is 150 years dead.

I quite like JSM.

Mill would probably agree with everything you just said, if it wasn't the case he is 150 years dead.

I don't know whether to sigh in relief of either him probably agreeing with me, or him pushing up daisies.

u·til·i·tar·i·an·ism Audio pronunciation of "utilitarianism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (y-tl-târ--nzm)
n.

1. The belief that the value of a thing or an action is determined by its utility.
2. The ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
3. The quality of being utilitarian: housing of bleak utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism is sometimes summarized as "The greatest happiness for the greatest number."
-Wikpedia

And that sirs is why I despise utilitarianism. The original utilitarianist equated pleasure with happiness, one of the first things Plato warned against.

These lowly British philosophers needed a much deeper discussion of what happiness is. These fools thought freedom, pleasure, and the "rights" of the herd were the means to acheive happiness.

Secondly, it places the making of values within the masses. This ignores the previously held belief that some people deserved more than others, no matter how many damned idiots thought otherwise. In the end, utilitarianism is merely an ideology of the weak, a justification to gain all their consciense and sub-conscience desires.

And if everything only has value as a means to an ends, as a use, as a utility, what then of humans? Is humanity only valuable as a tool? I find value not only in what an object is used for, but the object itself and the process itself.

u·til·i·tar·i·an·ism Audio pronunciation of "utilitarianism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (y-tl-târ--nzm)
n.

1. The belief that the value of a thing or an action is determined by its utility.
2. The ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
3. The quality of being utilitarian: housing of bleak utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism is sometimes summarized as "The greatest happiness for the greatest number."
-Wikpedia

And that sirs is why I despise utilitarianism. The original utilitarianist equated pleasure with happiness, one of the first things Plato warned against.

These lowly British philosophers needed a much deeper discussion of what happiness is. These fools thought freedom, pleasure, and the "rights" of the herd were the means to acheive happiness.
Are you suggesting rights and liberties don't make people unhappy?


Secondly, it places the making of values within the masses. This ignores the previously held belief that some people deserved more than others, no matter how many damned idiots thought otherwise. In the end, utilitarianism is merely an ideology of the weak, a justification to gain all their consciense and sub-conscience desires.
That doesn't seem to be what Mill says. He is advising the weak and poor to go off and die so that society can enjoy a more fufilling existence and that the wealthy should keep what they earn. And your ideas of merit and earning, even if utilitarianism contradicts them, surely isn't that a sign that these ideas of desert are just greedy and self-serving sentimentalities.

And if everything only has value as a means to an ends, as a use, as a utility, what then of humans? Is humanity only valuable as a tool? I find value not only in what an object is used for, but the object itself and the process itself.
I don't think Mill disagrees with you. He refers to liberty as "one's own good, in ones own way," and this is the road to what is best for all. But again the utilitarian arguement here is that you are just weak and selfish, you must think about the good of all persons, not only yourself.

These lowly British philosophers needed a much deeper discussion of what happiness is. These fools thought freedom, pleasure, and the "rights" of the herd were the means to acheive happiness.

Aside from this one section in which I am worried you attack civil rights, I pretty much agree with you.

Aside from this one section in which I am worried you attack civil rights, I pretty much agree with you.

Oh no, please don't misunderstand, I'm not against civil rights, I am primarily concerned with who makes them.

Are you suggesting rights and liberties don't make people unhappy?

Confused by double negative: I do not think many people know how to make themselves happy, and just telling them "Be free and try to figure it out" is not the best solution.

That doesn't seem to be what Mill says. He is advising the weak and poor to go off and die so that society can enjoy a more fufilling existence and that the wealthy should keep what they earn. And your ideas of merit and earning, even if utilitarianism contradicts them, surely isn't that a sign that these ideas of desert are just greedy and self-serving sentimentalities.

My attack is based on his predecessors, not fair to him. What the differences between him and the rest should be discussed, as you've done. You say "selfish" and I'm not sure we can be otherwise. I am trying to talk as an Objectvist, although I don't agree with the whole philosophy.

I don't think Mill disagrees with you. He refers to liberty as "one's own good, in ones own way," and this is the road to what is best for all. But again the utilitarian arguement here is that you are just weak and selfish, you must think about the good of all persons, not only yourself.

And here I disagree. If some members of society are capable of doing good on their own (and many do) good for them. However, many do not, and I think it should be in the state and people's intrest to not condemn those with no direction to continue to degrade their society and themselves. Freedom is held in such high esteem, but freedom is viewed as an ends by the masses. The leadership needs to view freedom as a means, not an ends. Not free from what, but free for what.

I do not see selfishness as doing good only for oneself, although that may often be the case. When a group of people declares of themselves certain rights, no matter how well-intentioned I consider it a form of self-preservation; selfish.

Oh no, please don't misunderstand, I'm not against civil rights, I am primarily concerned with who makes them.

VOOT~!

Confused by double negative: I do not think many people know how to make themselves happy, and just telling them "Be free and try to figure it out" is not the best solution.

My mistake, there should have only been one negative. But you are going to tell people how to be happy? I don’t think many governments do that. And you considered Mill anti the individual.

My attack is based on his predecessors, not fair to him. What the differences between him and the rest should be discussed, as you've done. You say "selfish" and I'm not sure we can be otherwise. I am trying to talk as an Objectvist, although I don't agree with the whole philosophy.

Mill again allows people to be selfish, but doesn’t see it as morally correct on its own. Surely you or your utility are of no greater worth than anyone elses. Just because you are you, doesn’t make there anything special about you.

And here I disagree. If some members of society are capable of doing good on their own (and many do) good for them. However, many do not, and I think it should be in the state and people's intrest to not condemn those with no direction to continue to degrade their society and themselves. Freedom is held in such high esteem, but freedom is viewed as an ends by the masses. The leadership needs to view freedom as a means, not an ends. Not free from what, but free for what.
Freedom for utility a utilitarian would say. Mill doesn’t suggest helping drug addicts; he would say that it is not for us to judge their utility, their use of freedom.

I do not see selfishness as doing good only for oneself, although that may often be the case. When a group of people declares of themselves certain rights, no matter how well-intentioned I consider it a form of self-preservation; selfish.
Utilitarians would agree that declarations of rights generally are selfish and “dangerous nonsense.”

My mistake, there should have only been one negative. But you are going to tell people how to be happy? I don’t think many governments do that. And you considered Mill anti the individual.

OK, here's my perspective: I'm a teacher, and it is rather disturbing to me how we treat our children. They, like many are incapable of figuring out what will make them happy, and in vain they inevitably fall into a quasi-utilitarian clique. When man is free, he will most likely chain himself to his own kind. This often leads to some very wrong interpretations of what happiness is.
It is more or less my job to tell the youth what will make them happy, even if I know it is a lie. "If you work hard and get a good education, you will get a good job and be able to support your own family someday." It is better that they hold onto that lie than onto nothing because they were free to do so.

Mill again allows people to be selfish, but doesn’t see it as morally correct on its own. Surely you or your utility are of no greater worth than anyone elses. Just because you are you, doesn’t make there anything special about you.

Perhaps not the selfishness, but the will behind what one wants to accomplish, what one dreams to acheive I can see a hierarchy in. Those who are great leaders I think should be placed in positions of power, and great leaders do not always consume themselves by worrying about the "common good" Although this may be disasterous, I still have hope.

Freedom for utility a utilitarian would say. Mill doesn’t suggest helping drug addicts; he would say that it is not for us to judge their utility, their use of freedom.

Utility is a use, a use a means. To have freedom for utility I interpret as a means, but a means to what? Did I just go around in a circle?

Utilitarians would agree that declarations of rights generally are selfish and “dangerous nonsense.”

However, they do proclaim their initial principle "greatest happiness for the greatest number." Perhaps not a "right" but maybe leading towards it. A right to be happy? (not that I'm against)

I didn't quit the debate, I went to bed, need sleep more than figure out how to fix world problems :( . Will continue later.

OK, here's my perspective: I'm a teacher, and it is rather disturbing to me how we treat our children. They, like many are incapable of figuring out what will make them happy, and in vain they inevitably fall into a quasi-utilitarian clique. When man is free, he will most likely chain himself to his own kind. This often leads to some very wrong interpretations of what happiness is.
It is more or less my job to tell the youth what will make them happy, even if I know it is a lie. "If you work hard and get a good education, you will get a good job and be able to support your own family someday." It is better that they hold onto that lie than onto nothing because they were free to do so.
You would leave utilitarians (and their opponents) deeply divided. Utilitarians in the end would come back to whether the lie promotes the greatest good. Mill I fear would say it doesn’t and that the children must learn what makes them happy for them and not be told by an authority figure. He may however, suggest that over time children will weigh up the competing conceptions of the good and choose what is right for them.

Perhaps not the selfishness, but the will behind what one wants to accomplish, what one dreams to acheive I can see a hierarchy in. Those who are great leaders I think should be placed in positions of power, and great leaders do not always consume themselves by worrying about the "common good" Although this may be disasterous, I still have hope.
I don’t particularly see what this has to do with Mill or utilitarianism. Mill would oppose leaders who don’t consider the common good, but so would most people.

Utility is a use, a use a means. To have freedom for utility I interpret as a means, but a means to what? Did I just go around in a circle?
Utility is the ends not the means. Being satisfied with life is the ends. Climbing bridges and reading poetry these are all part of that utilitarian end.

However, they do proclaim their initial principle "greatest happiness for the greatest number." Perhaps not a "right" but maybe leading towards it. A right to be happy? (not that I'm against)
Everyone has principles, it would be a dull world without them.

Your just letting your weak sentimentality get in the way of the greater good.
"Sentimentality?" ME? ROFLMAO!!!

"Sentimentality?" ME? ROFLMAO!!!

Yes, you. Your weakness, your sentimentality, your foolish morality leads to your opposition to morality. It is the foolish sentimentality in you human minds that prevents this utopia, where the weakest, the people will die out, so the strong can know what is to be TRUELY HUMAN.

Being truely human raises utility.

Mill thinks that anything is ok as long as it doesn't do anyone else else any harm, so if you get pleasure from squashing hamsters with your fists then you should be able to.

Rawls is much better.

Hampsters feel pain when they are squashed. Bentham in fact made the first arguement for animal "rights" and I think it is an idea that also applies to Mill.

With regard to Rawls, I feel his work amounts to nonsense. He bases his conclusion on arbitary provisos in an unreasonable game to get the result he wanted to begin with.

Hamsters do feel pain but it doesn't cause any harm to people so its ok. And Bentham, he was a utiliarian so anything goes as long as the net result is an increase in happiness.

Rawls does get the result he was looking for, tis true. And you have to be a liberal to agree with his result, which i am and which is why i agree.

Mill doesn't say that the Harm Principle only applies to humans; he even refers to "creatures" instead of humans in parts. So crushing hampsters is still bad.

And that Rawls gets the result he is looking for is a problem; you can't just arbitarily declare something is correct and then proclaim that you have proven it. In fact I can't see any good reason why a person would choose Rawls principles; most liberals say he goes too far, not to worry about anyone else.

What I don't understand is why utility is so good? What reason is there to favor it? Because we want happiness? Why should we increase happiness for any reason other than emotional preference?

2. The ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
Even though I despise the theory itself it really isn't that simple. Mill proposed that there were two orders of happiness. The lower, that which we have in common with other animals, and the higher, which basically means our intellect. He stressed that the higher was to be weighed more heavily than the lower in looking to maximize happiness. Of course, he gave no way of calculating a "happiness quotient" so it doesn't really matter anyway. Oh, and if you follow most of utilitarian theory to it's logical end, it turns out more communist than anything else. Unless you remove the whole lower/higher happiness idea in which case it advocates mob rule, a.k.a. direct democracy.

You would leave utilitarians (and their opponents) deeply divided. Utilitarians in the end would come back to whether the lie promotes the greatest good. Mill I fear would say it doesn’t and that the children must learn what makes them happy for them and not be told by an authority figure. He may however, suggest that over time children will weigh up the competing conceptions of the good and choose what is right for them.

And this is where I pretty sure they are wrong. "Condemned to be free," freedom is not as glorious a state as they once thought. Giving the illusion of irresponsibility, of being un-free, is many times prefferable, more pleasurable than to be fully consceince of one's choices.
Let alone wither or not humans can be free: if freedom to them is freedom of thought is how you know what will make you happy, I don't think that's possible. Consider this, why do you like the taste of candy?-cuz its sweet, why do you like the taste of sweet? cuz it's good. Why's it good? ummm.
My first attack would be something like, "Do we have any control over what we do or do not like? If not, how are we free to pursue the happiness that results from this?"
Second, children will formulate on their own a sense of good and bad that is determined by a group (usually) This group has little regard for those ostracised from it, but will try to increase happiness within itself. This is in a way utilitarianism.
I see utilitarianism as a relativist ethics. No matter how great one individual is, he is either left out becuase he is not part of the group, or given an equal share of "happiness" if he was part of the group. No matter how good of a person you are, your apportioned happiness, what you deserve, comes from wither you are in the majority or not. And if you are in the majority, you only deserve happiness equal to the rest.
If the majority of people were evil I don't care what makes them happy, they deserve to be punished.

I don’t particularly see what this has to do with Mill or utilitarianism. Mill would oppose leaders who don’t consider the common good, but so would most people.

I think I've had some great leaders who were not as concerned with my feelings, my happiness, but instead on accomplishing their goals. In the extreme, can be very bad.
And from a Nietzschen POV, common good is an oxymoron. Anything that is common is automatically bad for the individual, it is restrictive, "un-free." It restricts the individuals strive to accomplish greatness.
And what if the majority of people like to see other people unhappy? I know it happens, just look at the TV shows we've got, and how much we love tragedy. Wouldn't utilitariansim fold in on itself? I think our society and our history can provide sufficient proof that humanity finds much pleasure, happiness in seeing others suffer, seeing others not be happy

Utility is the ends not the means. Being satisfied with life is the ends. Climbing bridges and reading poetry these are all part of that utilitarian end.

How do utilitarians define utility? I put up the dictionary's definition, utility=use.

Even though I despise the theory itself it really isn't that simple. Mill proposed that there were two orders of happiness. The lower, that which we have in common with other animals, and the higher, which basically means our intellect. He stressed that the higher was to be weighed more heavily than the lower in looking to maximize happiness. Of course, he gave no way of calculating a "happiness quotient" so it doesn't really matter anyway. Oh, and if you follow most of utilitarian theory to it's logical end, it turns out more communist than anything else. Unless you remove the whole lower/higher happiness idea in which case it advocates mob rule, a.k.a. direct democracy.

I'm gald he at least did that, but he neglects the vast amount of sub-conscince crap that makes us happy. What of masochist? Sadists?
Also many people find great pleasure in suffering. Asceticism was a dominant practice in western civilization ever since the church came to power.
Utilitarianists, like so many others, do not know what makes them happy.

What I don't understand is why utility is so good? What reason is there to favor it? Because we want happiness? Why should we increase happiness for any reason other than emotional preference?
I guess the best response to this is can you think of a better standard of measurement than societies well being.

"Do we have any control over what we do or do not like? If not, how are we free to pursue the happiness that results from this?"
This sounds like the great debate between positive and negative freedom. Mill (but not all utilitarians) would say that to these things you are not free; you are not free to control to your desires. He does however say you should be free (limited by the Harm Principle) to pursue such desires.

Second, children will formulate on their own a sense of good and bad that is determined by a group (usually) This group has little regard for those ostracised from it, but will try to increase happiness within itself. This is in a way utilitarianism.
I don't think it is utilitarianism in its truest sense as they aren't thinking about the happiness of everybody. True that the sense good and bad is formulated within these groups, and I think this might trouble some utilitarians. I suppose in fact this would trouble most classic and modern thinkers that our ideas come from groups and not thought. But this doesn't really damage utilitarianism.

I see utilitarianism as a relativist ethics. No matter how great one individual is, he is either left out becuase he is not part of the group, or given an equal share of "happiness" if he was part of the group. No matter how good of a person you are, your apportioned happiness, what you deserve, comes from wither you are in the majority or not. And if you are in the majority, you only deserve happiness equal to the rest.
If the majority of people were evil I don't care what makes them happy, they deserve to be punished.
I think utilitarians would say that ideas of evil are subjective and derive from a Christian morality or something similar. Also "greatest happiness for the greatest number" is misleading; it should be "greatest happiness for all, although perhaps at the expense of some."

I do however feel that you have hit the nail on the head about utilitarianism. Although utilitarianism condemns rape because the victims pain is greater than the attackers pleasure; it strikes me why should the rapists pleasure even count? Obviously the response as before will be that I'm being subjective, placing my idea of the right, I'm letting my emotive cognitions get in the way of reason and so on.

I think I've had some great leaders who were not as concerned with my feelings, my happiness, but instead on accomplishing their goals. In the extreme, can be very bad.
And from a Nietzschen POV, common good is an oxymoron. Anything that is common is automatically bad for the individual, it is restrictive, "un-free." It restricts the individuals strive to accomplish greatness.
And what if the majority of people like to see other people unhappy? I know it happens, just look at the TV shows we've got, and how much we love tragedy. Wouldn't utilitariansim fold in on itself? I think our society and our history can provide sufficient proof that humanity finds much pleasure, happiness in seeing others suffer, seeing others not be happy
I think utilitarians would have to wiegh up different groups suffering and the pleasure other groups would get from that suffering and ask which is greater. Mill however would just point to the Harm Principle and claim that covers the principle of utility absolutely.


How do utilitarians define utility? I put up the dictionary's definition, utility=use.
Utility is a unified measure of happiness, satsifaction, pleasure; it is the measure of goodness of life.

This concept is often called the “Harm Principle” and is often associated with libertarian thought.


Delightful in its simplicity, but how do you get people to agree as to what is harmful and what isn't?

This is an interesting question; for Mill harm is both a negative and positive concept. Most people who argue for a Classical Liberal idea like the harm principle would argue only negative harm (harm by direct action) should be prevented; like stabbing someone. Mill however sites harm by inaction just as bad if the result the same; and cites that people should be compelled to defend innocent men in court rooms.

To Mill, harm would be anything that causes negative utility (by my understanding). I would imagine you would be very unhappy if you stabbed me.

However the Harm Principle can certainly be expanded or contracted by the definition of harm.

Fair nuff; I would agree that the definition of harm includes negative harm. But what if people cannot agree that certain activity or inactivity is causing harm (because, for example, of scientific uncertainty), or can't agree that something is harmful (because weighing social utility is an inherently subjective excercise).

For example; some people think that certain activities (And/or certain government's inactivities) are causing (allowing) climate change, which they say is harmful. Others say it is uncertain or are certain it is not occuring. Still others agree that it is happening, but do not agree that it is harmful; some even think it has positive social utility. So some (say environmentalists, or low-lying countries) invoke the harm principle, while others claim it does not apply. How do you reconcile this disparity of views? At what level of certainty is it acceptable to invoke the harm principle, and how do you arrive at an objective measure (or an agreed one) as to whether something has positive or negative social utility?

I think this is the problem faced by all great ideas, not just the Harm Priniciple.

I think a good way of thinking about this is to suggest that there is the mild and risk-averse applications of the Harm Principle. A mild application is to apply it to all proven harms; but let potential harms go uninterfered with. The risk-averse application is to apply to all possible harms. that have not been proved false.

Mill doesn't deal with this at great length, although suggests that some cases require "more cautious" application of the principle. At the end of the day, it does collapse to a value judgement unless you take either of the absolute applications provided above.

With regard to objective social measuring of utility; bluntly put, I don't believe this is possible. I doubt many utilitarians do either. Mill specifically avoids trying to say we know how good someone elses life is; his utility maximising principle in fact matches with some sort of immeasureable utility. Furthermore, utilitarianism probably more requires a sense of ranking rather than measurement; "is this better", not "how much better is this".

man, philosophy is hard...

With regard to objective social measuring of utility; bluntly put, I don't believe this is possible. I doubt many utilitarians do either. Mill specifically avoids trying to say we know how good someone elses life is; his utility maximising principle in fact matches with some sort of immeasureable utility. Furthermore, utilitarianism probably more requires a sense of ranking rather than measurement; "is this better", not "how much better is this".

Fair enough. But a ranking is probably no less subjective than a measurement.

I'm not saying this is a bad idea. I actually think the harm principle is quite valid. But I see some possible problems and I want to tease them out a bit more.