World Philosophy Day (15th November 2018)

Today is World Philosophy Day (15^th November 2018).

“The link between philosophy and UNESCO stems from inquiry on the possibility of and necessary conditions for the establishment of long-term peace and security in the world.”

“The humanities and philosophy deal not only with the traditional legacy derived from past cultures and times but also with the challenges the world is currently facing: the plurality of identities, languages, migration, environmental change, critical thinking on theory, action and policies… These legacies and dynamics nurture inventive approaches to social change.”¹

Harriet Taylor Mill and JS Mill were philosophers not only in theory but in practice. They were engaged in the world, especially in politics and social change. Both were feminists and supporters of women’s suffrage. JS Mill certainly did not just sit in his armchair at home working on his logic book. He used his philosophical/logic skills to improve society and influence politics in a positive, liberal and tolerant way. He, together with the 17^th century Dutch Jewish philosopher Spinoza, valued toleration which didn’t mean merely putting up with others but attempting an empathetic approach whereby people try to appreciate the standpoint of the other, whether they agree with them or not (and JS Mill often didn’t) and respect them as fellow human beings. If there was one word that would sum up his political approach it would be debate and then debate some more and even when you think you’ve debated enough debate again! Only then do you have a shot at the truth. JS Mill would not consider a one-off referendum without adequate prior information and debate to be democracy or freedom. It certainly would not bring you close to the truth! What would JS Mill do if he were in politics today? As a liberal he would take a measured, middle of the road approach bearing in mind what is best for society. He would not continue with Brexit because it has not only sparked off hate speech, racism, nationalism but is causing and will cause immense suffering and poverty as well as financial instability. When his views became too unpopular he took time out in France so he would be a supporter of the EU and would think that working together in harmony and peace was crucial to stability, prosperity and social order, cohesion and justice.

The liberal voice in politics has disappeared and what we are left with are extremists views voiced from the right or the left of the political spectrum. This has left politics very unbalanced and prone to dictatorships which would be of great concern to both Harriet and JS Mill. How does one bring back the voice of reason? For JS Mill it would be an educated population. However, many people attend university in the 21^st century so they are more educated than in the 19^th century. Overall, women have more formal education and a number of them hold university degrees albeit less PhD’s than men. It could be why 75% of young people (18-24) are pro-Europe and voted Remain. They are better educated than their parents’ generation and have the ability to grasp the issues and recognise the advantages the EU offers. Young people are more outward looking as a result. An island frame of mind is not for them and neither are they hankering for a British Empire. Women are also more inclined towards voting to remain in Europe because they, like the LGBT community worry their rights will be eroded. Harriet T Mill would be up and about galvanising the women’s movement to have their voices not just heard but listened to and acted upon. She would be concerned about the rights of women and how Brexit would affect these rights, including laws, education, employment, marriage/divorce and domestic violence. JS Mill would be supporting them in Parliament making his points strongly and clearly.  What would worry both Harriet and JS Mill is the aggressive insistence on the part of the Brexiteers to shout down anyone whose opinion isn’t the same as theirs and, even worse, try to hound out academics in universities who speak against Brexit demanding to see their syllabus. This would have sent shivers down Spinoza’s spine too! Conformity is not liberty.

I think both JS Mill and Harriet would be shocked to see how the UK has gone backwards instead of becoming more civilised and peace loving with a strong democracy it spends its time insulting the EU making them appear to be a dictatorship when nothing can be further from the truth!

As an aside, having just commemorated those who fought and those who died in the two World Wars, and pledging with one voice –‘Never Again’ will there be a world war or a holocaust or violent discrimination of certain peoples, nevertheless, once the day 11/11/18 was over, people were back to destroying each other with violent words and acts.

As JS Mill said it’s not just the will of the people that matters, it’s what is good for the people socially, economically, health-wise and politically. Democracy, peace and freedom must be maintained. If anything threatens it, it must be eradicated. I’m sure Spinoza two centuries earlier would echo the same sentiments.

On this World Philosophy Day, I think we should celebrate the skills of critical, logical thinking that philosophy provides and together with the great philosophers JS Mill, Lady Mary Shepherd, Spinoza, and Hume maintain that philosophical rigour clear of interference from theology should be maintained. The two are very different in their argumentation and as these philosophers would argue freedom to think is important, a human right and, therefore, should not be subject to or compromised by any particular religious doctrine/dogma or watered down by an interdisciplinary approach. Subjects, such as, literature, history, or science are not philosophy. This does not mean that there is no dialogue between them. But as UNESCO put it, philosophy has a distinctive role to play in world peace and security and, in accordance with a seminal UNESCO publication, philosophy “is defined as a “School of Freedom””².

¹quote from:

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/most-programme/humanities-and-philosophy/

² ibid

Publication available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001541/154173e.pdf

Mill and 50/50 Parliament for IWD

Today (8/3/18) is International Women’s Day, which the Suffragettes started.

JS Mill was an amazing philosopher whose belief in women’s equality helped him create an egalitarian marriage with fellow philosopher and women’s rights activist Harriet (Taylor) Mill with whom he worked in equal partnership.  JS Mill was a public intellectual and an MP for Westminster for 3 years and an advocate for giving women the vote challenging the stereotypes that existed about women in the 19^th century. His tireless campaigning and petitioning alongside the suffragettes eventually lead to political and legal progress for women.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/parliamentary-collections/1866-suffrage-petition/collecting-the-signatures/

To celebrate the legacy of the philosophers JS Mill and Harriet and follow in their footsteps this International Women’s Day and all year round, let’s make 50/50 representation in parliament a reality.

We can champion their theme, #PressforProgress, by:

·         challenging stereotypes and bias:

Using inclusive language. Harriet Mill felt passionately about this and encouraged JS Mill to use gender neutral language.

Challenging biased assumptions, statements and arguments about women

Fighting against inequality, the obstacles and glass-ceilings women face

·         celebrating women’s achievements, past and present, individual and collective

·         making women visible:

Promoting opportunities for women and encouraging them to be leaders, including in politics. One such way is:

·         maintaining a gender parity mindset:

In politics, 50/50 representation in Parliament is the objective. You can get involved in bringing this about by backing the 50/50 Parliament in the following ways, including:

ü  Signing their petition: https://www.change.org/p/50-50-want-to-build-an-inclusive-modern-and-gender-balanced-parliament-it-would-lead-to-more-responsive-and-informed-decision-making-so-everyone-would-benefit-50-50-are-asking-those-in-power-for-solutions-and-taking-action-join-us-5050parliament

ü  Promoting #AskHerToStand or by becoming a female member of parliament yourself

ü  Following them on social media

ü  Becoming an Ambassador for 50/50 Parliament  

For more details see: https://5050parliament.co.uk/get-involved/

And you can join me in pressing for progress by going to:

https://marchingasonefeministblog.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/international-womens-day-8th-march-2018.html

Social Justice Day

Social Justice Day

Today, 20^th February 2018, is Social Justice Day around the world. J. S. Mill, Harriet Taylor Mill and Helen Taylor were all very passionate about social justice and active, vocal advocates in bringing it about for more groups in society than is often appreciated. As Reeves points out:

“For Mill, every individual, black or white, Christian or Hindu, male or female, must have the necessary liberties and resources to lead lives of their own construction.”¹   

What do we mean when we talk about social justice? Why is it important?

I think this passage on the United Nations’ website answers both questions and summarises key features:  

“Social justice is an underlying principle for peaceful and prosperous coexistence within and among nations. We uphold the principles of social justice when we promote gender equality or the rights of indigenous peoples and migrants. We advance social justice when we remove barriers that people face because of gender, age, race, ethnicity, religion, culture or disability.”²

I like the fact that this description highlights that social justice is a foundational principle, rather than, for instance, an ideal or ideology. It also draws attention to the need to be vigilant wherever social injustice occurs, as well as the role of making continuous advancements to expand the realm of what constitutes social justice and how to address all those disadvantaged by societal prejudice and bias. This, unfortunately, includes a huge number of people in society if not the majority.

Women are not a minority group (historically women outnumbered men in the world, which is important in order to ensure genetic diversity, although this is no longer the case, there are currently more men than women³) yet suffer so many more obstacles in life than men, be it educational (the further along the education system you go the less percentage of women there are), or employment opportunities (far less and paid less and often do not match their ability or education and that is in addition to discrimination of women of child bearing age). Just these two factors alone place women in a far less stable financial situation than men. Women are considerably poorer than men, with few exceptions, throughout the world. This impacts on women when they reach mature years, because their lack of financial security when younger negatively affects their assets, savings, pensions and health so that, in old age, many women are on the poverty line which is totally unacceptable and is unnecessary in developed countries. Furthermore, women of colour suffer from the added obstacle of racial discrimination so they can be worse off than both white women and even men of colour. The picture I’ve painted above becomes even worse if you are disabled because the world simply isn’t constructed to fit you in whether it’s travelling on public transport or entry to most buildings where, for instance, there are steps but no ramps or the entrance is too narrow for a wheelchair. Educational and employment opportunities for disabled people are the lowest out of all groups in society. Hence, poverty is particularly acute for this group.

This is why it’s essential that feminism embraces and includes all women irrespective of their background and their additional identities. In other words, fully including women of all colours and (so-called) none, LGBTQ+, mature women, disabled women, women of all classes, religions, beliefs, cultures and nationalities and being sensitive to their diverse needs and experiences. United we may have a better chance of bringing about justice for all.

This does not even begin to show the full picture. We have a long way to go before we can say that there is social justice in our country or other countries around the world. It’s vitally important that we are sensitive and empathetic towards others and realize the hardships they suffer and do everything that a civilization should that everyone, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, age, race, class, religion, or disability has a home, access to educational and employment opportunities which give them financial security and that they feel fully included in society. This isn’t pie in the sky but a fundamental human right and society benefits from it because it promotes physical, mental and emotional health, creates diversity which promotes ideas and creativity which in turn creates prosperity from which all benefit. It also reduces crime and social instability so bringing about an ideal state of co-operation and peace not just within a nation, which also includes respect and recognition of the rich contribution of indigenous peoples, but between nations too. Social justice brings about freedom, happiness, security and peace for individuals and as a collective.

¹ Reeves, R. (2007) “John Stuart Mill: Victorian Firebrand”, Atlantic Books, p7

²http://www.un.org/en/events/socialjusticeday/

See also: http://www.un.org/en/events/socialjusticeday/background.shtml

³http://www.medicaldaily.com/female-population-has-always-outnumbered-males-historically-according-our-genes-304428

100 years since women were allowed to vote

Today, I’m commemorating 100 years since some women were given the vote in Britain with my Mill Philosophy Circle. Here’s a link to the suffragettes’ rousing anthem, written by Dame Ethel Smyth in 1911: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCtGkCg7trY

JS Mill was a key figure in the Suffragette movement and worked tirelessly for women’s freedom and equality whether it was in raising money or presenting their case  and putting forward amendments to a Reform Bill in the House of Commons which would help give women the vote. He abhorred the power men held over women considering it unhealthy for both sexes but also detrimental to any children a couple may have together. JS Mill was passionate about women’s equality and their freedom to determine their lives as they wished. He strongly believed that this was good for women and for society as a whole. Both JS Mill and his wife Harriet Taylor Mill wrote about women’s suffrage¹. Her daughter, Helen Taylor joined the Kensington Society, set up in 1865 by a group of women to hold intellectual debates. In this year, Helen gave a paper, alongside others, addressing the society’s question of parliamentary reform to include women’s right to vote. This debate culminated in Helen drafting the 1866 petition which JS Mill used to argue for an amendment to the 1867 Reform Act. When it was voted down, they, including Emily Davies, transformed themselves into the London Society for Women’s Suffrage alongside JS Mill who became its first president. This society spread to having branches around the country which eventually, together with other suffrage groups, united under the umbrella name of the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies. Millicent Garrett Fawcett became a president of this society, having been an active participant in the previous Suffrage Society after her sister, Elizabeth Garrett, introduced her to JS Mill’s speeches and the movement for the emancipation of women.  

The Suffragettes went on to suffer horrendously for their cause. It makes for gruesome reading/viewing! So today we remember everything they went through to give us the vote and lead freer lives than they were able to do. This must never be taken for granted! Nevertheless, there’s still an awful lot left to do before women have true equality with men, especially in the present political world climate where women’s rights are, once again, being threatened. The Mills would be extremely concerned and shocked by the lack of progress and scaling back of women’s rights in the world today! What would please him, however, would be the unveiling of the statue of the suffragette Alice Hawkins in Leicester. He certainly lived by her motto ‘Deeds not Words’.

¹ Open access texts of their writings, including on women’s suffrage, are available to read at:

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/mill-the-collected-works-of-john-stuart-mill-volume-xxi-essays-on-equality-law-and-education and see appendix C for Harriet’s essay ‘Enfranchisement of Women’  

Celebrating World Philosophy Day at the Mill Philosophy Circle

I'm celebrating World Philosophy Day UNESCO and the reasons behind it with my Mill Philosophy Circle. It’s an idea I’m sure Harriet Taylor Mill and  J.S. Mill would have endorsed. She was a philosopher and a women's rights activist and he was politically active and into world issues, for example, poverty, class injustices, women’s suffrage, ending slavery, racism, sexism and discriminatory attitudes. He also encouraged respectful debate and exchange of ideas so together we reach greater knowledge and truth and use this to improve human rights, society and the world. These principles behind philosophical debating, as well as those outlined by UNESCO below, form the values of this international circle and participation within it.  

"Background 

In establishing World Philosophy Day UNESCO strives to promote an international culture of philosophical debate that respects human dignity and diversity. The Day encourages academic exchange and highlights the contribution of philosophical knowledge in addressing global issues.

Why a Philosophy Day?

Many thinkers state that “astonishment” is the root of philosophy. Indeed, philosophy stems from humans’ natural tendency to be astonished by themselves and the world in which they live. This field, which sees itself as a form of “wisdom”, teaches us to reflect on reflection itself, to continually question well-established truths, to verify hypotheses and to find conclusions. For centuries, in every culture, philosophy has given birth to concepts, ideas and analyses, and, through this, has set down the basis for critical, independent and creative thought. World Philosophy Day celebrates the importance of philosophical reflection, and encourages people all over the world to share their philosophical heritage with each other. For UNESCO, philosophy provides the conceptual bases of principles and values on which world peace depends: democracy, human rights, justice, and equality.

Philosophy helps consolidate these authentic foundations of peaceful coexistence."

UN website available at: http://www.un.org/en/events/philosophyday/background.shtml     

So, to celebrate World Philosophy Day here’s a quote from J. S. Mill’s On Liberty, p63:

“No one can be a great thinker who does not recognize that as a thinker it is his first duty to follow his intellect to whatever conclusions it may lead.”

Available at:  http://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/347/0159_Bk.pdf

J.S. Mill as Maximising Utilitarian? Rawls takes on J.S. Mill

As I mentioned in my previous post, Fitzpatrick¹ puts forward an interpretation of J.S. Mill which compellingly shows how to resolve the apparent tensions in Mill’s works which scholars have debated. I am intrigued by Fitzpatrick’s² fourth chapter, ‘The Rawlsian Objection’ because I wrote a contemporary political philosophy essay on Rawls and liberalism a few years ago³. A specific lecture for this module, out of which this essay arose, included an examination of J.S. Mill’s political philosophy. However, for the purpose of this essay, which involved an analysis of the set reading for the essay title, I needed to focus on evaluating Rawls’s political liberalism and contemporary responses to his theory of justice. This includes his criticism of previous political liberalists who draw on what he generically refers to as classical utilitarianism, under which he would include J.S. Mill. So I am interested in looking at whether classical utilitarian liberalists can hold their own against Rawls on the topic of freedom and justice but this time looking at it from the other side of the debate. Fitzpatrick⁴ provides us with a picture of this by showing how the classical utilitarian, especially J.S. Mill, could have defended his views against Rawls’s criticisms.

Fitzpatrick’s analysis identifies the pivotal claim in Rawls’s argument against classical utilitarian liberalists as being that they rely on the principle of maximising utility for the greatest number of people and that all their other principles are of secondary importance because they merely arise from this principle⁵. Rawls then builds on this claim by arguing that this leads to potentially unacceptable results for individual freedoms and rights which makes classical utilitarian liberalism a self-defeating, flawed approach⁶. Fitzpatrick outlines various Rawlsian objections but highlights that he thinks the strongest of the objections made by Rawls and his supporters is that classical utilitarianism could:

“justify sacrificing one person…..to avoid harms to others. Justice forbids sacrificing the freedom of one person for another. Such a practice would not take the distinction between persons seriously.”⁷          

On reading this summary of Rawls’s objection to classical utilitarian liberals, I asked myself whether this sufficiently and accurately captured Rawls’s overall perspective on classical utilitarianism over a cross-section of his works, especially how it related to J.S. Mill. So I refreshed my memory of Rawls’s writings by looking through ‘A Theory of Justice’, ‘Collected Papers’, and ‘Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy’.

When assessing Rawls’s ‘A Theory of Justice’⁸, I was dissatisfied with his very broad-brush approach to the wide range of classical utilitarianism. Rawls does acknowledge that “There are many forms of utilitarianism” but nevertheless states that he will “not survey these forms here, nor take account of the numerous refinements found in contemporary discussions.”⁹ However, I think taking account of at least some salient variations in classical utilitarianism would have helped support Rawls’s theory of justice.

I think this because:

1) Rawls is partly building his theory out of the so-called flaws he finds in classical utilitarianism and so he is more likely to include erroneous flaws by lumping all variations into one generic category and set of assumptions, irrespective of their differences in approach. This leaves him open to criticisms, such as Fitzpatrick’s, which show how Rawls’s criticisms do not sufficiently undermine a particular philosopher or approach.

2) Rawls states his “aim” is to provide “an alternative to all of these different versions of” utilitarianism¹⁰. However, I think Rawls’s suggested alternative in his ‘A Theory of Justice’ is weakened by his narrow, stereotypical depiction of classical utilitarianism. It makes me wonder whether Rawls has fallen into the strawman fallacy problem of characterising classical utilitarianism in a way which makes it easier for him to knock down the approach in order to clear the way for his suggested improvement on it.

3) Rawls states in his ‘A Theory of Justice’ that when he says utilitarianism he will “describe…the strict classical doctrine” the best example of which is Sidgwick¹¹. However, throughout this book, I noticed he does specify J.S. Mill in passages on utilitarianism and sometimes argues against him. For instance, he specifies passages in J.S. Mill and his principle of utility when he writes that, although Mill can “support freedom”, Rawls argues his ‘justice as fairness’ approach is more convincing than J.S. Mill’s arguments concerning equal liberty¹².

Furthermore, Rawls cites J.S. Mill in his footnotes¹³ as a source when making general statements depicting utilitarianism in general as holding that “the sum of advantages is to be maximized” and that “justice” is “derivative …of…the greatest balance of satisfaction.” Rawls also goes on to generalise that, for the utilitarian, “there is no reason in principle why the greater gains of some should not compensate for the lesser losses of others; …why the violation of the liberty of a few might not be made right by the greater good shared by many”…… “it is right for a society to maximize the net balance of satisfaction taken over all its members.”¹⁴ These passages, I think, support Fitzpatrick as accurately describing Rawls’s description of classical utilitarianism and how he includes J.S. Mill within it. Fitzpatrick¹⁵ is certainly right in claiming that Rawls is interpreting J.S. Mill as a maximising utilitarian who makes his principle of utility central to his arguments, because many passages point to Rawls emphasising J.S. Mill’s maximising approach and talking about the principle of utility as primary and justice as secondary.

However, Fitzpatrick’s¹⁶ central claim for his interpretation of J.S. Mill is that he was not a maximising utilitarian and that the problem lies with reading Mill in this way. Hence, Fitzpatrick argues scholars who read Mill as a maximising utilitarian are misguided in their claims that Mill is inconsistent or incoherent. So Fitzpatrick’s book aims to show that these internal tensions disappear on his re-interpretation of J.S. Mill. Indeed, J.S. Mill’s commitment to “liberalism, liberal feminism, representative democracy, individual rights”¹⁷, amongst other things, means it should be quite obvious to us that he would not be attracted to a maximising approach in the first place.     

¹Fitzpatrick, J.R. (2006), “John Stuart Mill’s Political Philosophy”, Continuum Studies in British Philosophy, Continuum

²ibid

³ available at:

 https://www.academia.edu/34946210/Can_liberalism_be_anything_other_than_just_one_more_sectarian_doctrine_4th_yr_Spring_2013_BA_Philosophy_London_uni_4yr_part_time_political_module_chosen_specialisation_

⁴ Fitzpatrick, J.R. (2006), “John Stuart Mill’s Political Philosophy”, Continuum Studies in British Philosophy, Continuum

⁵ ibid p129

⁶ ibid chapter 4

⁷ ibid p146

⁸ Rawls, J. (1971) “A Theory of Justice”, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press

⁹ ibid p22

¹⁰ ibid

¹¹ ibid

¹² ibid p209-210

¹³ ibid p26

¹⁴ ibid

¹⁵ Fitzpatrick, J.R. (2006), “John Stuart Mill’s Political Philosophy”, Continuum Studies in British Philosophy, Continuum

¹⁶ ibid

¹⁷ibid p129

J.S. Mill on Freedom of Thought, Expression and Association

I mentioned in my last blog post, that freedom was the cornerstone of J.S. Mill’s philosophy. So, here, I’d like to begin to expand on J.S. Mill’s concept of freedom a little further by focusing on how to characterise the three fundamental freedoms that underpin J.S. Mill’s philosophy: freedom of thought, expression and association.

I shall draw on an excellent book I’m currently reading called “John Stuart Mill’s Political Philosophy” by Fitzpatrick (2006)¹. I recommend Fitzpatrick’s book as suggested reading for my Mill Philosophy Circle. It makes an important contribution to scholarship on J.S. Mill and it’s fascinating to see how he makes a greater effort than many to put forward a very positive view of J.S. Mill’s philosophical ideas with strong textual evidence to support his claims. He also sets out his fresh take on how to understand Mill by situating his interpretation within Millian scholarship. Fitzpatrick builds on aspects of some scholars’ work to support his view of Mill as arguing coherently and persuasively across his different works. Therefore, he refutes those who see Mill as arguing weakly and inconsistently between his books ‘On Liberty’ (1859) and ‘Utilitarianism’ (1861, 1863).  

Fitzpatrick² maintains that, of all the different freedoms, the central one is freedom of thought out of which come two other fundamental freedoms, namely, freedom of association and expression. Fitzpatrick captures the reason for this brilliantly:

“Freedom of thought would be of little value if one was not free to test one’s ideas in the intellectual marketplace. To develop one’s thought in full it is necessary to subject one’s ideas to the scrutiny of others. In order to do this you must be free to express yourself to others and to be free to associate with others…”³

This means that people need to be allowed to think freely and for themselves and say what they think within the public domain, whether the view is currently popular or not, while allowing others to do the same. To try to discourage this freedom of speech adversely affects both the individual, other people and society in general by limiting their freedom and access to a variety of ideas without which the truth cannot be discovered. The truth is best arrived at when opposing views are allowed to be aired. So the coming together of people to discuss, debate, agree or disagree is fundamental. Social interaction is, therefore, an essential freedom to value and preserve not just in theory but also in practice.

Another key reason why such freedoms, amongst other things, are so vital in society is that they cultivate our mental faculties, without which we’d “deny some important feature of our humanity”⁴. Fitzpatrick supports this with an extract from J.S. Mill⁵:

“He who lets the world, or his own portion of it, choose his plan of life for him, has no need for any other faculty than the ape-like one of imitation. He who chooses his plans for himself, employs all his faculties.”

Mill lists examples of such faculties as “observation”, “reasoning and judgement”, collating information for decision-making, discernment and the strength of character in order for a person to “hold to his deliberate decision”⁶. These need to be cultivated so that people can go beyond a life of activities, such as carrying out tasks dictated to them, that even a robot could manage⁷. Mill wants people to realise that “human nature is ….a tree, which requires to grow and develop itself on all sides”⁸.

In other words, just as a tree that is only developed on one side is lop-sided, so our characters need to be well-rounded rather than excel in some ways but be underdeveloped in other ways, for example, a person who is highly intellectual with numerous qualifications yet has the emotional intelligence of a three year old is not well-rounded. Instead, we should strive to make good use of the intelligence we possess and be capable of using our faculties to decide a life for ourselves that will make us happy, rather than allowing others to coerce us into not fulfilling our dreams and desires.

¹Fitzpatrick, J.R. (2006), “John Stuart Mill’s Political Philosophy”, Continuum Studies in British Philosophy, Continuum

²ibid p65

³ibid

⁴ibid p71

⁵ibid p71-2, p82 quoted by Fitzpatrick as J.S. Mill 1859 chapter III paragraph 4.    

⁶ibid p71

⁷ibid p72

⁸ibid

Shedding Light on J S Mill

I’m currently reading Reeves’ biography on JS Mill and enjoying some background context which sheds light on his philosophy and who he was. Here’s what I’ve learnt from the biography so far.

Here’s a quote from Mill’s ‘On Liberty’ that particularly struck me on reading it (in Reeves, 2007, p9): 

“The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it” and the reason why is that if a State turns people into “docile instruments….even for beneficial purposes” then “no great thing can really be accomplished”.

Mill was a passionate orator, activist, politician and campaigner. He was also a keen botanist and environmentalist who campaigned to save the elm trees of Piccadilly and believed that the public should have access to woods and feel free to fight for this access should it ever be denied.

He was considered the best 19^th century British philosopher yet was critical of philosophers who spent all their time theorizing. For Mill, the most important aspect of life was that everyone, regardless of gender, race, or creed should be free to lead their life the way they want to, while at the same time, trying to lead a good life which did not cause harm to anyone. Freedom was the cornerstone of his philosophy. He believed in democracy as the best overall political system for supporting liberty as long as the people were educated to a sufficient enough level to be well-informed citizens living well collectively (the latter being something Spinoza also valued). His reason for getting out of bed every day was to improve the life of others and help people help themselves. A present day example of this is, I think, a system used in Africa today whereby women are given help to set up their own small businesses so they can support themselves and their children. So many women live in poverty today, even in this country, maybe a system like this should be implemented here. Mill was always aware of world issues and trying to solve them. Even as a teenager he was advocating contraception as a way to reduce poverty and infanticide which was committed by women who could not afford to look after yet another child. This issue about contraception and planned-parenthood is still relevant today, two centuries later. Unfortunately, he was arrested for handing out pamphlets on contraception and spent a few days in jail.

Just as Spinoza’s philosophy is often overshadowed by too much emphasis on his excommunication from his synagogue so, I feel, Mill’s philosophy is overshadowed by him being seen as a strict utilitarian, austere like his father, James Mill, and his affair/marriage to Harriet Taylor whose contribution to his philosophical works is still underestimated today. A sexist attitude J.S. Mill himself did not share. He was at pains to say that they were so at one in thought that it was difficult to tell who thought what first. This is also how her closest friend, Eliza Flower, a British composer, saw Mill and Harriet. They were soulmates, intellectual collaborators. However many still wish, including Reeves, to contradict Mill and think her contribution wasn’t that important, he would have been just as successful no matter what woman he married. Male arrogance as far as I’m concerned! Mill is known for his fierce support of women’s equality as well as his love of truth.  

Reeves, R., (2007) John Stuart Mill, Victorian Firebrand, Atlantic Books

Happy Birthday J.S. Mill!

Today, 20^th May, is John Stuart Mill’s birthday. He was born in 1806 and was one of the founders and presidents of the first women’s suffrage society, named the ‘London Society for Women’s Suffrage’. In 1866, he made a speech in Parliament arguing in favour of women being given a voice in who should represent the people by giving women the vote. Here’s the speech he made: http://oll.libertyfund.org/quote/91 .   

So, to celebrate his birthday, it would be great if all women eligible to vote made sure they are registered to do so. Registration in the UK closes at 11:59pm this Monday 22^nd May! It only takes 5 mins and can be done online at https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote .

About the Mill Philosophy Circle

It struck me that JS Mill is an important philosopher along with his father James Mill and his wife Harriet Taylor Mill, with whom he had a close collaboration, yet they seem fairly under-represented in philosophical debate compared with other philosophers, for example, Kant. I looked for a group to join that was specifically dedicated to the Mills but couldn’t find one so I’ve started this blog to fill the gap. My interest in Mill is that, amongst philosophers, he is unique in that he was a male feminist devoted to social reform and women’s rights. He was practical in that he involved himself in political life and stood up for what was right. This is pertinent today when politics seems in turmoil and liberal values are under threat.