J.S Mill: The Philosopher of Liberty and Representative Government

John Stuart Mill was a 19th-century philosopher and economist known for his influential writings on individual liberty, utilitarian ethics, and the potential dangers of majority tyranny in democratic societies. His ideas continue to shape modern political and ethical discourse.

Introduction

John Stuart Mill, one of the most influential philosophers and economists of the 19th century, was a key figure in the development of utilitarianism and liberalism. Born on May 20, 1806, in London, he was the eldest son of the historian and philosopher James Mill. Unlike many of his contemporaries, Mill’s education was unconventional; he was privately tutored by his father and the utilitarian thinker Jeremy Bentham, bypassing formal schooling altogether. This unique upbringing significantly shaped Mill’s intellectual outlook, embedding within him the principles of utilitarianism and rationalism from a young age.

Utilitarianism, with its economic foundations rooted in Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations (1776), was politically developed by Bentham, who applied a rationalistic approach to societal issues. Bentham harbored a deep suspicion of the “sinister interests” of those in power and advocated for reforms like annual elections, secret ballots, and recall mechanisms to protect public interest. He famously declared, “pushpin is as good as poetry,” suggesting that all pleasures are of equal value and can be measured quantitatively.

Mill, however, found this perspective unsatisfactory. Despite being Bentham’s most notable pupil, Mill later critiqued his mentor’s simplistic view of pleasure, admitting he was “Peter who denied his master.” Drawing inspiration from romantic poets like Wordsworth, Mill attempted to synthesize rationalism with romanticism, thereby transforming Benthamite utilitarianism. He introduced the idea that not all pleasures are of equal value, arguing that “it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”

In addition to his reformation of utilitarian thought, Mill made lasting contributions to liberalism. He is widely recognized for his robust defense of freedom of speech and individuality, as well as his belief that a liberal society is a necessary foundation for a liberal state. Mill’s writings on these subjects, particularly in his work On Liberty, have left an enduring legacy in political theory, positioning him as a crucial advocate for individual rights and freedoms in modern democratic societies.

Early Years and Career

John Stuart Mill, born in London on May 20, 1806, was the eldest of nine children. His education was entirely orchestrated by his father, James Mill, a historian and philosopher. John Stuart Mill’s formative years were characterized by an intensive intellectual regimen, focusing on the same books his father used for his own writing, such as The History of British India (1818). By the age of eleven, Mill was already assisting his father by proofreading his works, and by fourteen, he published Elements of Political Economy (1820), an introductory textbook on economics, marking his early immersion in the subject.

James Mill’s appointment as Assistant Examiner at the East India House in 1819 provided the family with financial stability and allowed him to focus on his philosophical pursuits. In 1823, John Stuart Mill secured a position as Assistant Examiner in the British East India Company, where he worked for nearly three decades until his retirement.

Mill’s education was unconventional. Denied a formal school experience, he learned Greek at the age of four and Latin by eight. By ten, he had read Plato’s dialogues and was familiar with works by Euripides, Homer, Sophocles, and Thucydides. His education extended to higher mathematics, including algebra, geometry, and calculus. Mill’s upbringing under the strict guidance of his father left him with little recollection of his mother’s role in his early life. In his Autobiography (written in the 1850s), Mill acknowledged that his intense education deprived him of a normal childhood, though it deeply shaped his intellectual abilities.

Mill’s intellectual growth continued as he explored the works of thinkers like Thomas Carlyle, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Auguste Comte, Goethe, and Wordsworth. The poetry of Wordsworth and Coleridge had a profound impact on Mill, especially after a “mental crisis” in 1826, where he struggled with severe depression. Romantic poetry helped him recover, broadening his perspective and allowing him to integrate emotion and imagination into his previously rationalist worldview.

Mill’s political writings gained prominence in his twenties as he contributed to newspapers and periodicals. His System of Logic (1843), which he began writing in the 1820s, was a groundbreaking work that combined British empiricism with a Newtonian approach to social sciences. His essays On Liberty (1859) and The Subjection of Women (1869), co-authored with his wife Harriet Taylor, became classics in the defense of individual rights, freedom of speech, and gender equality.

Mill’s reexamination of Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism marked a significant shift in his thought. While Bentham’s “greatest happiness principle” quantified pleasure and pain equally, Mill introduced a qualitative distinction, famously stating, “it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” This critique was further explored in his pamphlet Utilitarianism (1863), where he argued that happiness could only be defended if distinguished from mere pleasure.

Mill’s relationship with Harriet Taylor, whom he met in 1830 and married in 1851, was a major influence on his work. Harriet contributed significantly to his writings on liberty and women’s rights. Mill described her as the “honor and chief blessing” of his life, believing that had she lived in an era with greater opportunities for women, she would have been “eminent among the rulers of mankind.”

John Stuart Mill died in 1873 in Avignon, France, leaving behind an enduring legacy in philosophy, political theory, and social reform.

Major Works by J.S Mill

Mill’s major works are a testament to his profound impact on philosophy and politics:

• A System Of Logic (1843)
• Principles Of Political Economy (1848)
• On Liberty (1859)
• Considerations On Representative Government (1861)
• Utilitarianism (1863)
• The Subjection Of Women (1869)

Note – Philosophy of J.S Mill – R.P Anschertz

An Equal Freedom for Women by J.S Mill

In The Subjection of Women (1869), John Stuart Mill opens with a radical assertion: “the principle which regulates the existing social relations between the two sexes—the legal subordination of one sex to the other—is wrong in itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement; and… it ought to be replaced by a principle of perfect equality” (p. 119). Mill’s criticism was directed at 19th-century English law, particularly the marriage contract, which legally subordinated women to men. Married women could not hold property in their names; any property or income they earned automatically belonged to their husbands. Even if gifted property by their parents, it was transferred to their husbands upon marriage. Moreover, fathers were the sole legal guardians of children, and no laws addressed marital rape, underscoring women’s lack of rights.

Mill was struck by the inconsistency of modern society, which had embraced liberty and equality in many domains but still denied these principles to women. While slavery had been abolished, women were still often treated worse than slaves. Mill explained this persistence by asserting that all men, unlike slaveholders and despots, had a vested interest in maintaining women’s subordination.

Mill refuted four main arguments for women’s inequality:

1. Universal Tradition: The first argument was that women’s subordination had been universal across history, implying its justification. Mill countered by stating that universal acceptance did not make a practice just. He pointed to slavery, once universally accepted, which had been abolished, arguing that women’s subordination could similarly be overcome.
2. Natural Inferiority: The second argument claimed that women were naturally inferior to men. Mill rejected this, asserting that differences between the sexes were due to socialization, not nature. He noted examples of accomplished women, such as European queens and Hindu princesses, who excelled despite societal limitations.
3. Voluntary Acceptance: The third argument was that women accepted their subordination willingly. Mill demonstrated that this was false, as many women had written against inequality and were already protesting for their rights in London. He argued that women feared worse treatment if they resisted their husbands’ control, hence their silence.
4. Family Leadership: The final argument held that for families to function smoothly, a single decision-maker was necessary, and that role naturally fell to the husband. Mill dismissed this, asserting that both husband and wife were adults capable of shared decision-making.

Mill further argued that granting women equality would benefit society in four ways.

First, it would abolish the patriarchal family, a “school of despotism” that taught inequality.

Second, it would “double the mass of mental faculties” available to society by unleashing women’s intellectual potential.

Third, equality would improve relationships, as women would no longer assert their wills through subversive means.

Finally, it would increase happiness for women, aligning with Mill’s utilitarian belief in promoting the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

Mill also emphasized that democracy itself would remain fragile unless egalitarian families were established, linking private life with public democratic citizenship. His critique of the patriarchal family remains central to feminist discussions today, though some feminists argue that modern capitalism reinforces, rather than eliminates, patriarchal structures.

Concept of Liberty by J.S Mill

John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty (1859) is a powerful defense of individual liberty, arguing that personal freedoms are essential for the intellectual, moral, and material advancement of human beings. Mill emphasized the importance of liberty in nurturing mental and moral faculties such as perception, judgment, decision-making, and self-control. These faculties, he argued, develop only when people are free to make their own choices. He said, “The human faculties of perception, judgment, discriminative feeling, mental activity, and even moral preference, are exercised only in making a choice… the mental and moral, like the muscular powers, are improved only by being used.”

Mill advocated for three specific liberties:

1. Liberty of Thought and Expression: Mill argued that freedom of thought and expression is fundamental for the progress of society. He stated that if all of humanity but one person held the same opinion, silencing that one person would be unjust. He declared, “If all mankind minus one 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.” Mill further emphasized the importance of this freedom by stating, “Placing restrictions on freedom of expression of human beings is like robbing off the present and the future races.” For Mill, even if a minority opinion is wrong, allowing it to be expressed ensures that the truth of the majority opinion is not taken for granted and becomes a “living truth” rather than a “dead dogma.”

2. Liberty of Action: Mill introduced the “Harm Principle” to define the limits of personal freedom. He stated, “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.” Mill believed that individuals should have complete control over their own actions and choices, so long as they do not harm others. He noted, “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” Mill also discussed the difficulty of distinguishing between self-regarding and other-regarding actions, using examples like property destruction to explain that some actions, while appearing personal, can indirectly harm others.

3. Liberty of Association: Mill argued that individuals should have the right to associate freely, forming groups to pursue common interests. He believed that association contributed to personal and social development. Mill wrote, “When the thing to be done is likely to be done better by individuals than by the government… allowing individuals to get together to do something, even if they do not do it as well as the government might have done it, is better for their mental education.”

Mill warned that liberties are often more under threat in democratic societies than in despotic regimes. In democracies, where people feel less threatened by their own government, they can become complacent, making it easier for social pressures and customs to erode individual freedoms. He argued that individuals must remain vigilant not only against government oppression but also against societal norms that could stifle personal liberty. He concluded, “The only unfailing and permanent source of improvement is liberty, since by it there are as many possible independent centers of improvement as there are individuals.”

Mill’s belief in individual liberty was rooted in the idea that human improvement is achieved through freedom, and a society that promotes liberty fosters continuous moral, intellectual, and material progress.

Critique of Utilitarianism by J.S Mill

John Stuart Mill consistently identified himself as a utilitarian, despite the evolution of his principles. Even when discussing concepts like rights, Mill subsumed them under the broader framework of utility. He defined rights as extremely important utilities, emphasizing that his utilitarian foundation remained intact. Mill’s upbringing under his father, James Mill, a close associate of Jeremy Bentham (the founder of utilitarianism), deeply influenced his intellectual formation. Although Mill faced an emotional crisis in his early twenties, he continued to defend utilitarianism in his work, always applying the standard of utility in his arguments. For example, he believed that granting equality to women would increase overall happiness. Similarly, he defended liberty on the grounds that it promoted social utility, and he supported a modified liberal democracy because it proved useful for social progress.

Mill’s key text Utilitarianism (1862) was written to address criticisms of the philosophy. He opened by pointing out that moral philosophers had long disagreed on the criteria for differentiating right from wrong. Rejecting the idea that humans have a natural moral sense—similar to physical senses like sight or smell—that can intuitively detect right actions, Mill proposed utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, as the true foundation of morality. This principle dictates that an action is moral if it increases pleasure and reduces pain.

A notable divergence from Bentham’s utilitarianism was Mill’s emphasis on the quality, not just the quantity, of pleasure. While Bentham had viewed all pleasures as essentially equal and calculable, Mill argued that certain pleasures were qualitatively superior to others. He famously stated that it is “better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied,” indicating that higher intellectual and moral pleasures should be valued above base physical pleasures. This marks a significant shift in the philosophy, with Mill asserting that some forms of happiness carry more weight because of their intrinsic quality.

One major criticism of utilitarianism is that it assumes humans act purely from self-interest, akin to animals seeking pleasure. Mill responded by highlighting the “social feelings of mankind”—the natural human desire for unity with others, which he believed was a powerful aspect of human nature. According to Mill, people inherently care about the happiness of others because the “social state” is natural, necessary, and habitual for humanity. This led Mill to argue that an interest in others’ happiness was not a forced or artificial condition but an organic aspect of human life.

The most significant objection Mill faced was the idea that justice, rather than utility, should be the foundation of morality. In response, Mill linked justice to rights. He argued that injustice occurs when someone’s rights are violated, but crucially, these rights themselves are justified through utility. For Mill, rights are valuable because they serve a social purpose: they allow individuals to enjoy a secure and progressive society. He concluded that society should defend rights not because of an inherent moral sense but because doing so benefits the general utility. As Mill explained, “To have a right is to have something which society ought to defend me in the possession of,” and society should defend rights purely because of their utility.

Mill took issue with some aspects of Bentham’s original utilitarianism, which he felt overlooked the importance of individual character and moral motives. In response, he modified utilitarianism to include a sense of universal altruism, empathy, and impartial justice. For Mill, the ultimate goal of life was not merely the pursuit of pleasure but a more nuanced happiness that included moral virtues, self-control, and the balance of individual and collective interests. Mill also rejected the idea of Bentham’s “felicific calculus”—the notion that pleasures and pains could be objectively measured and compared. He considered this approach overly simplistic and impractical.

In his writings, Mill maintained the utilitarian creed while modifying it to address its shortcomings. He incorporated elements of morality, social feelings, and justice into his framework, defending rights and liberty based on their utility. For Mill, happiness was more than just pleasure—it was the perfection of human nature and moral virtue, making him a pivotal figure in the development of a more sophisticated utilitarian philosophy.

Democracy and Representative Government by J.S Mill

John Stuart Mill began his work Considerations on Representative Government by asserting that the best form of government is one that most effectively fulfills its purposes. According to Mill, the government must serve two primary functions: utilizing the citizens’ talents and skills to serve their interests and improving their moral, intellectual, and active qualities. A despotic government may achieve the first function, but it would fail at the second. Only a representative government can achieve both, by combining the principles of participation and competence to protect and educate its citizens.

Mill introduced Bentham’s idea of “sinister interests” to explain how representative government could ensure the common interest of society is advanced rather than the partial interest of a group or class. He believed that all individuals, including different social classes, are the best judges of their own interests. Mill dismissed the idea that people may not understand their “real” interests, asserting that their current habits and choices reflect their actual interests. Therefore, participation in government should be as widespread as possible, extending to all individuals, including women. He advocated for suffrage to everyone except those who could not read or write, didn’t pay taxes, or were reliant on parish relief.

To ensure minorities were also represented, Mill supported Thomas Hare’s system of proportional representation. While Mill championed widespread participation, he also believed in competence, advocating for plural voting. He argued that the franchise should be extended, but with educated citizens receiving additional votes to ensure better-caliber representatives. For example, professionals and university graduates would receive more votes based on a “graduated scale of educational attainment.”

Mill sought to combine participation and competence in other democratic institutions, such as the representative assembly. He envisioned it as a “committee of grievances” and a “congress of opinions,” where every view in society would be voiced. However, he argued that this body should not handle legislation or administration, which required the expertise of a Codification Commission and a competent bureaucracy. Mill differentiated between instrumental competence—the ability to find the best means to fulfill given goals—and moral competence, which involved recognizing the general interest over partial interests.

On the issue of improving citizens, Mill believed that representative government was superior to despotism because it elevated the intellectual and moral qualities of the citizens. He advocated for open voting, where voters must justify their choices publicly, fostering intellectual and moral growth. Participation in local government and voting would help citizens develop their capabilities, but this participation needed to be guided by competence to have an educational effect.

Mill also warned that civil liberties could be at risk in democratic regimes unless citizens remained vigilant, but he still considered democracy the most favorable form of governance. However, Mill argued that representative government could only work in active, self-reliant societies; passive citizens in backward civilizations could not sustain it. He believed that democracy required plural voting to balance the majority and ensure that educated individuals had more influence. His famous quote, “Liberty cannot be utilized properly if people are not educated enough,” emphasized the importance of education in a functioning democracy.

He further quoted that “No one but a fool and only a fool of a peculiar description, feels offended by the acknowledgement that there are others whose opinion and even whose wish is entitled to greater amount of consideration than this”.

As Mill supported democracy, critics like Wayper called him a “reluctant democrat,” while Ernest Barker regarded “Mill as prophet of an empty liberty and an abstract individual” because of his double standards of liberty where he gives more consideration to people who are more educated and restricts the essence of actual liberty that every individual deserves irrespectively.

Tyranny of Majority

Mill’s perspective on safeguarding individual liberty is broad, as he does not solely rely on popular sovereignty for protection against threats to human freedom. Instead, he aligns himself with thinkers like Benjamin Constant and Alexis de Tocqueville, sharing the view that the tyranny of the majority poses a significant danger in an era of popular governance. Mill’s concern about potential encroachments on individual liberty extends beyond the idea that popular rule alone is sufficient for safeguarding human freedom. 

He further provides a view that due to this popular government there are three potential threats to minorities – State, Mass society and Populism. These threats can undermine the interests of minorities. Mill was worried that the influence of public opinion has the potential to suppress individuality, and he sees these informal societal pressures as a type of coercion. He believes that the dominance of public opinion can be just as detrimental to human freedom as the imposition of legal constraints.

Economy and State Intervention by J.S Mill

When did not represent the classical economic theory of laissez faire he advocated that some areas of interference should be there. He preferred laissez-faire to state intervention in matters of social and economic policy. Even though the idea of laissez faire is ideal, it could be set aside for welfare works like education and child care etc. He believed that the state must ensure that no one is starving. He further quoted “Political liberty in absence of economic liberty is a myth”.

Mill viewed the State as a moral institution with a primary concern for promoting virtue and excellence in individuals’ lives. He stressed that the concept of a good life was more crucial than a life solely devoted to pursuing pleasure. “State is the moral institution with a moral end”. But at the same time the state should not interfere in the affairs of individuals.

Wayper contended that J.S Mill shows a good deal of sympathy for socialism and wishes to use the state to remove obstacles in the way of individual development.

Conclusion

John Stuart Mill’s liberalism provided the first major framework for modern democratic equality, particularly in his advocacy for women’s rights. He sought to end the subjugation of women, becoming the first male philosopher, as noted by Okihiro, to explicitly address women’s oppression. As a Member of Parliament, Mill campaigned for women’s suffrage but was disappointed when it did not pass. He also emphasized protecting individual liberty from societal intrusion, distinguishing between self-regarding actions, which belong to the private sphere, and other-regarding actions, related to the public domain. This distinction was crucial in safeguarding minority rights within a democracy.

Mill recognized the flaws of classical utilitarianism, advocating for compulsory state education and social control to address them. He understood that his views differed from Bentham’s utilitarianism and described himself as a socialist. Mill envisioned a future where individual liberty was balanced with collective ownership of resources and equitable distribution of labor’s benefits. In his Autobiography, he reflected on this shift: “I was a democrat, but not least of a socialist.” He believed the social problem of the future lay in uniting individual freedom with common ownership, questioning the compatibility of capitalism and democracy.

Mill’s revision of liberalism laid the groundwork for thinkers like T.H. Green, who incorporated the idea of a common good into liberal philosophy. His works, including “On Liberty” and “Utilitarianism,” remain influential, shaping discussions on individual freedom, the role of the state, and the balance between personal liberty and collective welfare.

Read More:

• India’s Strategic Rise Through BRICS: Diplomacy, Economic Goals, and Global South Leadership
• Putin Declares BRICS as the Future of Global Economic Growth, Counterweight to Western Dominance
• India and Pakistan’s Diplomatic Shift at the 2024 SCO Summit: A New Approach Amid Historic Tensions
• 21st ASEAN-India Summit 2024: PM Modi’s 10-Point Plan for Strengthening India-ASEAN Relations
• India and Canada at a Crossroads: Unpacking the Nijjar Controversy and Historical Roots