How successful was Mill.doc

How successful was Mill in reconciling the inevitable tension between the desires of individuals and the needs of the community? ‘Some’ Elements of Answer Introduction What is meant by the ‘needs of the community’? It could naturally refer to ‘direct’ needs of the State like taxation, forcing someone to testify in court or to be trained in an army. But from a utilitarian perspective, the needs of the community may be extended to a broad array of things related to the community’s happiness and the legitimate ways of protecting each one’s happiness from the others’. Mill’s originality: he introduces the idea of autonomy in utilitarian framework. What is at stake here: the conflict between Mill’s utilitarianism and his principle of liberty based on individuality Three parts, Mill’s concept of Individuality, how spontaneity and coercion are in theory compatible, and some limits of the theory studied with Mill’s examples. Mill’s utilitarian principle of Individuality Mill’s criticism of previous representations of liberty [Locke-Rousseau-Tocqueville]: no individual spontaneity “the practical question, where to place the limit – how to make the fitting adjustment between individual independence and social control – is a subject on which nearly everything remains to be done” ‘One very simple principle’ of freedom : “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant” A utilitarian theory: Like liberty of expression, liberty of self-regarding acts is essential to the realisation of the individual’s spontaneity, character and happiness. Experiences of living. “free development of individuality is one of the leading essentials to well-being” Freedom allow individual to ‘have a character’; “A person whose desires and impulses are his own – are the expression of his own nature, as it has been developed by his own culture – is said to have a character”. Autonomy as foundation of higher pleasures, utilitarian theory, [article J.Gray] Strong impulses, energetic characters are important source of self-development; “If, in addition to being his own, his impulses are strong, and are under the government of a strong will, he has an energetic character” They are useful for the whole society : “it is through the cultivation of these that society both does its duty and protects its interests: not by rejecting the stuff of which heroes are made” Reconciling spontaneity and coercion Though intrinsically good, strong impulses or desires should be cultivated “within the limits imposed by the rights and interests of others” Individuals should find ‘a proper balance’ (“strong impulses are only perilous when not properly balanced”) Importance of conscience. “It is not because men’s desires are strong that they act ill; it is because their consciences are weak” Society should help people to cultivate these strong impulses (self-regarding freedom) but also to cultivate their conscience to help them reach this ‘proper balance’: need for coercion by ‘general rules’: “In the conduct of human beings towards one another, it is necessary that general rules should for the most part be observed, in order that people may know what they have to expect; but in each person’s own concerns, his individual spontaneity is entitled to free exercise. Considerations to aid his judgment, exhortations to strengthen his will, may be offered to him, even obtruded on him, by others; but he himself is the final judge” (chapter 4) - What are the limits of individual’s sovereignty? “Where does the authority of society begins? How much of human life should be assigned to individuality, and how much to society?” - General principle: Self-other regarding distinction “To individuality should belong the part of life in which it is chiefly the individual that is interested; to society the part which chiefly interests society”. Legitimate area of legal interference: individual’s conduct towards the rest of society, firstly like not injuring the interests of others, and secondly bearing his share “of the labours and sacrifices incurred for defending the society or its members from injury and molestation” Legitimate area of moral disapprobation: “The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others, or wanting in due consideration for their welfare, without going the length of violating any of their constituted rights. The offender may then be justly punished by opinion, though not by law” To sum up, legal coercion is only used when the interests of others are seriously threatened, otherwise when others are only affected, social stigma (natural penalty) warns the individual he’s on the wrong path. [see interpretation of Rees] How successful was Mill in reconciling them? Theory & Application Example of drunkenness. Consumption of alcohol is self-regarding; by principle “no person ought to be punished for being drunk”; however there limits to the principle Limit 1: a self-regarding could turn out, according to the circumstances, to be other-regarding, ex. “a soldier or a policeman should be punished for being drunk on duty” or someone who already affected others when drunk “Drunkenness, for example, in ordinary cases, is not a fit subject for legislative interference; but I should deem it perfectly legitimate that a person, who had once been convicted of any act of violence to others under the influence of drink, should be placed under a special legal restriction, personal to himself”, so “Whenever, in short, there is a definite damage, or a definite risk of damage, either to an individual or to the public, the case is taken out of the province of liberty, and placed in that of morality or law”. Limit 2: consuming alcohol is self-regarding but producing or selling is other-regarding and can be the object of legal restriction. Therefore, and despite the fact taxation is a kind of prohibition “to those whose means do not come up to the augmented price”, taxation “of stimulants, up to the point which produces the largest amount of revenue [..] is not only admissible, but to be approved of”. It is also “fit to confine the power of selling these commodities [..] to persons of known or vouched-for respectability of conduct; to make such regulations respecting hours of opening and closing as may be requisite for public surveillance, and to withdraw license if breaches of the peace repeatedly take place…” Questions: to what extent these kinds of circumstances actually limit the principle of self-regarding liberty? To what extent are acts in society self-regarding at all? What justify the State to encourage or discourage some practices rather some other ones? Example of ‘good manners’ and moral: “there are many acts which, being directly injurious only to the agents themselves, ought not to be legally interdicted, but which, if done publicly, are a violation of good manners, and coming thus within the category of offenses against others, may rightfully be prohibited. Of this kind are offenses against decency”. The weight of public reprobation de facto limits individual’s spontaneity and individuality, it acts more in favour of the uniformity and the tastes of the majority Mill is criticising; “There is a degree of folly, and a degree of what may be called [..] lowness or depravation of taste, which, though it cannot justify doing harm to the person who manifests it, renders him necessarily and properly a subject of distaste, or, even of contempt [..]. Though doing no wrong to any one, a person may so act as to compel us to judge him, and feel to him, as a fool, or as a being of an inferior order: and since this judgment and feeling are a fact which he would prefer to avoid, it is doing him a service to warn him of it beforehand, as of any other disagreeable consequence to which he exposes himself.” Questions: What are the ‘good manners’ but the manners of the majority? What is exactly the difference between what is subject to public dislike and harm to others? What is the nature of harm? Does the fact to act ‘publicly’ justify a legal action? How should we understand spontaneity, happiness and individuality when the opinion of the majority has such of power? Dangers of Democracy Conclusion Unlike his predecessors’, Mill’s utilitarianism is based on self-chosen and experienced individual happiness that demands complete freedom of expression and act, to the extent it does not harm the interest of others. Huge contribution to utilitarianism and freedom (Berlin) His theory is basically grounded on a distinction between self and other-regarding actions that has been widely criticised in the past. The notion of harm undoubtedly lacks precision as well. But it is probably in the examples Mill provides that his weaknesses, maybe due to the Victorian context, are the most salient. They contradict however his very progressive stances on liberty of expression. Issues to be raised anew in Representative Government. PS pol2. Robinson College. Christophe Salvat. 23rd November 2007