Utilitarianism and Natural Rights
Utilitarianism, is the theory that the rightness of an act derives from the happiness or pleasure it produces as its consequences. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), was the famous utilitarian. Here we mention him for his view that talk about natural rights is so much nonsense. And, indeed, utilitarian philosophy in general does not easily accommodate a belief in natural rights. Why? Well, consider a possible natural right—for example, the right to keep what you have honestly earned. If taking from you what you have honestly earned and distributing it to people who are poorer than you are increases the sum total of happiness, utilitarianism apparently requires that we do this, despite your “natural right.” Utilitarianism seems to require violating any so-called natural right if doing so increases happiness.
Utilitarians often attempt to
accommodate our intuitions about natural rights by maintaining that in
civilized society more happiness results when what are called natural rights
are respected than when they are not. They say that natural rights should be
regarded as secondary rules of conduct that must be obeyed for the sake of the
general happiness. However, in viewing natural rights as a system of moral
rules that promote general happiness, utilitarians do not always explain why
such rules should not be overridden when doing so better promotes the general
happiness.
Harriet Taylor
Like many women philosophers, Harriet Taylor (1807-1858)
has been known to the public primarily through her association with a male
philosopher; in Taylor’s case the male philosopher was John Stuart Mill. Taylor and Mill shared a long personal and professional intimacy, and
each shaped and influenced the ideas of the other. However, Taylor was a
published author of poetry before she even met Mill in 1831. Recently, a draft
of an essay on toleration of nonconformity was discovered in Taylor’s
handwriting; it appears to have been written in 1832. She was a regular
contributor of poetry, book reviews, and a literary piece to the radical,
utilitarian, and feminist journal The Monthly Repository. Later, Mill,
too, became a regular contributor, and eventually Taylor and Mill began writing
together. However, their writings were published under Mill’s name, partly
because a man’s name gave the work more legitimacy within a sexist culture but
also because Taylor’s husband was unhappy with the idea of his wife’s gaining
notoriety. Nevertheless, from the evidence of their manuscripts and their
personal correspondence, it is possible to piece together an idea of which
works were primarily Taylor’s and which were Mill’s; she was a profound thinker
in her own right.
Taylor was interested both in
sweeping transformations of society and in specific legal reforms. One of her
greatest concerns was the tendency of English society to stifle individuality,
originality, and radical political and religious views. English society, in her
opinion, was intolerant of opinions that failed to conform to the mainstream.
She considered the intolerance of nonconformity to be morally wrong and
ultimately dangerous to human progress. Taylor’s essay on such intolerance is a
stirring statement of the theory that “the opinion of society—majority opinion—
is the root of all intolerance.” Her defense of minority viewpoints and
individuality predated by twenty-seven years Mill’s famous treatise On
Liberty
John Stuart Mill
PROFILE: John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
Many years ago, one of the authors came across a table of projected
IQ scores for various historic “geniuses” in a psychology text. (Who knows how
the scores were calculated?) At the top of the list, with some incredible
score, was John Stuart Mill.
Mill began reading Greek at three and Latin at eight; by adolescence
he had completed an extensive study of Greek and Latin literature as well as
history, mathematics, and logic. Mill’s education was administered by his
father, who subjected young John to a rigorous regimen.
At fifteen Mill settled on his lifelong objective, to work for
social and political reform, and it is as a reformer and an ethical and
political philosopher that he is most remembered. Mill championed individual
rights and personal freedom and advocated emancipation of women and
proportional representation. His most famous work, On Liberty (1859), is
thought by many to be the definitive defense of freedom of thought and
discussion.
In ethics Mill was a utilitarian, concerning which we have much to
say in Chapter 10. He published Utilitarianism in 1863.
Mill’s interests also ranged over a broad variety of topics in
epistemology, metaphysics, and logic. His System of Logic (1843), which was
actually read at the time by the person in the street, represented an
empiricist approach to logic, abstraction, psychology, sociology, and morality.
Mill’s methods of induction are still standard fare in university courses in
beginning logic.
When Mill was twenty-five, he met Harriet Taylor, a merchant’s wife,
and this was the beginning of one of the most celebrated love affairs of all
time. Twenty years later, and three years after her husband died, Mrs. Taylor
married Mill, on whose thought she had a profound influence. On Liberty was
perhaps jointly written with her and, in any case, was dedicated to her.
Harriet Taylor died in 1858. Mill spent his remaining years in
Avignon, France, where she had died, to be near her grave.
Mill’s Autobiography, widely read, appeared in the year
of his death. Mill still is the most celebrated English philosopher of his
century.
Mill's Political Philosophy
Like Locke and Rousseau, John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
was much concerned with liberty. Mill, you will recall from the previous
chapter, was a utilitarian. He believed that happiness not only is good but
also is the good, the ultimate end of all action and desire. “Actions
are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend
to produce the reverse of happiness,” he wrote. But remember that utilitarians
are not egoists, and Mill believed that it is not one’s own happiness that one
should seek but instead the greatest amount of happiness altogether—that is,
the general happiness.
Unlike Rousseau, Mill did not
view a community, a society, a people, or a state as an organic entity separate
and distinct from the sum of the people in it. When Mill said that one should
seek the general happiness, he was not referring to the happiness of the
community as some kind of organic whole. For Mill, the general happiness was
just the total happiness of the individuals in the group.
Now, Mill, following Bentham and
Hume and like Rousseau, rejected Locke’s theory that people have God-given
natural rights. But he maintained that the general happiness requires that all
individuals enjoy personal liberty to the fullest extent consistent with the
liberties of others. “The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is
amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely
concerns himself, his independence is . . . absolute.” Mill regarded personal
liberty, including freedom of thought and speech, as essential to the general
happiness. It is essential, he argued, because truth and the development of the
individual’s character and abilities are essential to the general happiness,
and only if there is personal liberty can truth be ascertained and each
individual’s capacities developed. It therefore follows that an individual
should enjoy unrestrained personal liberty up to the point where his or her
activities may harm others.
Of course, it is difficult to
identify when an action may be said to harm others. Liberalism places
the burden of proof on the person who claims that harm to others will be done.
That the burden must be so placed is Mill’s position.
The best form of government,
according to Mill, is that which, among all realistic and practical
alternatives, produces the greatest benefit. The form of government best suited
to do this, he maintained, is representative democracy. But Mill was especially
sensitive to the threat to liberty posed in democracies by the tyranny of
public opinion as well as by the suppression by the majority of minority points
of view. For this reason he emphasized the importance of safeguards such as
proportional representation, universal suffrage, and enforcement of education
by the state.
Now, promoting the general
happiness would seem sometimes to justify (if not explicitly to require)
restrictions on personal liberty. Zoning ordinances, antitrust laws, and
motorcycle helmet laws, to take modern examples, are, arguably, restrictions of
this sort. Mill recognized the dilemma that potentially confronts anyone who
wishes both to promote the general happiness and to protect personal liberty.
His general position is this: The government should not do anything that could
be done more effectively by private individuals themselves; and even if
something could be done more effectively by the government, if the government’s
doing it would deprive individuals of an opportunity for development or
education, the government should not do it. In short, Mill was opposed to
enlarging the power of the government unnecessarily.
No comments:
Post a Comment