JOHN STUART MILL BICENTENNIAL CONFERENCE
|
This speech was delivered during a panel on Ethics, which was part of the John Stuart Mill Bicentennial conference, at the University College of London, on the 6th of April 2006.
Were also part of this panel the following papers: Desire accounts of Well-Being and Irrelevant Desires Mill’s Metaethics - A Preliminary Account |
Ce discours a été prononcé devant un groupe de travail consacré à l'éthique, lors de la conférence du bicentenaire de la naissance de John Stuart Mill , à l'University College of London, le 6 avril 2006.
Les textes suivants faisaient également partie de ce groupe de travail : Desire accounts of Well-Being and Irrelevant Desires Mill’s Metaethics - A Preliminary Account |
JOHN STUART MILL: LOGIC AND POLITICS
John Stuart Mill grew up as a Utilitarian, he was educated as a Utilitarian though he later refused to be labeled this way. The ground of his philosophy is Bentham's utilitarianism. According to Bentham, mankind is ruled by two Sovereign Masters: pleasure and pain. All that diminishes pain and increases pleasure is said to be useful.
The ultimate goal of lawmakers, of judges, of governments is to increase pleasures and to diminish pains of the greatest number. In other words, the ultimate goal is to promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
John Stuart Mill fully subscribes to that point of view. However, he makes two major significant changes, or perhaps, two major revolutions. The first revolution, the most famous one, is described as the Crisis of 1826 in his Autobiography. In 1826, John Stuart Mill was in his early twenties when he experienced a crisis in his mental history. He managed to defeat it thanks to Romantic poetry and Coleridge. Romantic and Coleridge influence had a deep impact on his way to conceive Utilitarianism. He thus modified Bentham's conception of the individual. This subject shall be discussed later.
He also implemented quality, which means that pleasures do not only differ from each other in degrees but also, in kinds.
The Second Revolution that John Stuart Mill brought in Utilitarianism is less famous than the former one. It is often ignored by commentators. It is though a major one as it is the cornerstone of the System of Logic. It started after John Stuart Mill read a pamphlet by Macaulay criticizing James Mill's Essay on Government. The Essay on Government dealt with Utilitarianism as applied to politics. It was criticized by Macaulay because James Mill started his essay with a set of a priori statements. On reading Macaulay's critique, John Stuart Mill discovered that even Utilitarianism could be subject to a priori, hence to prejudice.
This was not tolerable to him. He thus decided to resume his philosophical quest from the beginning, even though it might have been necessary to reject utilitarianism in the first place in order to re-assert it later. That is probably the reason why he chose to lay emphasis upon induction, and to create a logic of induction. He thus wrote A System of Logic. John Stuart Mill's logic is not based upon a priori statements, it is not based upon prejudice; it is genuine induction. It does not start with assumptions nor with given truths; it is actually a progress, a three-step progress.
The first step of this progress is language, the second is induction itself and the third is the creation of laws. Those three steps form a pattern that can be applied to any field, be it science or politics. Logic is not exclusively designed for science. Its main purpose is to create a common pattern that may apply to any kind of reasoning, regardless of the topic or the field. I am deeply convinced that A System of Logic was specifically shaped to tackle political issues. In my opinion, it is a political book; it really is, not only because its sixth book is entitled The logic of the moral sciences but also because it promotes induction. As induction defeats prejudice, it is highly useful for a political thinker supporting free democracy like John Stuart Mill.
Yet, one must acknowledge that the pattern of logic may require some modifications when applied to politics. In some instances, induction can be implemented directly. For example, in the Subjection of Women, John Stuart Mill proves that women and men are equal because anyone asserting the opposite would not make a valid induction. In other instances, induction cannot be implemented that easily. It must then be applied to politics throughout utility.
For I do believe that utility is the counterpart of induction in politics. Induction and utility both rest upon key principles - the law of universal causation for the former, the principle of utility for the latter -, they both aim to create laws and to make assertions. Therefore, when applied to politics, the pattern of logic must rely equally upon induction and utility. There is also another modification in politics: the objects of the pattern of logic applies to, are different. In science, we deal with phenomena whereas in politics, the key actor is the individual.
This point is particularly important as John Stuart Mill's conception of the individual differs from Bentham's. According to Bentham, an individual is an agent governed by two Sovereign Masters: pleasure and pain. An individual is not actually described. John Stuart Mill agrees with that concept. An individual is not necessarily a person. A company, a trade company, or a society - I mean a club - could, in some instances be considered as an individual. Therefore, in my view, when we consider the very concept of individual in utilitarianism - be it in Bentham's or in John Stuart Mill's works - we must first and foremost conceive it as a unit with various aspects, not necessarily a human being. More specifically, concerning John Stuart Mill, one must also take into account Romantic and Coleridge legacy.
Thus, the individual is not only an agent governed by utility, it is also a human being with passions, with impulses, with a strong personality, with a character. Mill's vision concerning the individual is dual: the individual is both a barely described unit the form of which may change depending on our point of view. It is also a person with all their passions and characters. The first vision stems from Bentham, the second, from Romanctic influence. Both visions are necessary to understand John Stuart Mill's philosophy, notably to trace the way he handles issues related to equilibrium and liberty. Whenever liberty involves interaction between individuals, whenever it involves the fact of not harming others and of taking part in the general well-being of society, Bentham's conception prevails. Whenever individuality, originality, diversity and eccentricity are promoted, then it's up to John Stuart Mill's own romantic conception of the individual to prevail. Hence, John Stuart Mill's logic is a pattern designed to apply to any field, to science as well as to politics, though it requires some modifications when applied to politics.
In conclusion, I shall propose a challenge to you. Can you sum up John Stuart Mill's works in two words, in two words only ? Should anyone reply 'yes, I can'. I would not believe them. However, if we chose the following words: centre and eccentricity, we would not be that wrong.
For the centre is often mentionned in John Stuart Mill's works, in the third chapter of On Liberty for instance. Eccentricity is equally promoted. Yet, one should not forget that eccentricity literaly means far from the centre. Centre and eccentricity: reaching the centre but trying to avoid it. That is probably the ultimate gamble of John Stuart Mill's philosophy.
Vincent-Emmanuel Mathon
London, 6th of April 2006