Talk:John Stuart Mill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
*1
The introduction of this article is too short.
To comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines, it should be expanded to summarize the article.

Contents

[edit] Influences and Influenced

I have started a discussion regarding the Infobox Philosopher template page concerning the "influences" and "influenced" fields. I am in favor of doing away with them. Please join the discussion there. RJC Talk 14:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Quotes

" I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it."

In a letter to the Conservative MP, Sir John Pakington (March, 1866) Lycurgus 11:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mill as MP

The article currently states that Mill was an Independant MP, but I have read elsewhere that he was a member of the Liberal Party, and all online records I can find of the election list only Liberals and Conservatives being elected; no independants. Can anyone produce something that shows one way or the other? Enigma00 04:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Mill was elected for the Liberal Party in the district of Westminster. During his election campaign, he made speeches in Covent Garden and Trafalger Square. Don't know an exact footnote, but you can read 'The Cambridge Companion to Mill' (Cambridge 1998).--Daanschr 09:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
That's what I thought. The article still says he was an independant, however, so I'm going to change that.Enigma00 (talk) 07:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Classical liberalism

How can John Stuart Mill be a classical liberal if he espouses utilitarianism? Intangible 00:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

He was a classical liberal in the sense that he advocated for very strong restrictions on what the government could do against an individual, or force that individual to do. He justified this on utilitarian grounds on the assumption that a society or government that, in effect, left people to do what they wanted as long as it did not directly harm anyone else, would lead to the greatest good for the greatest number. C d h 18:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with this answer. Intangible raises a very good question. Many classical liberals believed there was a moral order, which keeps society together. Classical liberals are afraid that the government good break down this moral order. So, the utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill is a morality imposed on inviduals to respect eachothers liberty. John Stuart Mill was not against state intervention. Those who respect the liberty of others and who voluntarily help others out should be left alone by the state. But those who act selfish, or who don't respect the liberty of others are barbarians in the view of Mill and can be forced by the government to learn to respect others.
Another so-called classical liberal, Adam Smith, defended economic liberty, presuming that the moral order of society and politics would prevent that economic laws would harm society. Classical liberals after Smith were scepticle about evidentness of morality to control economic laws in order to prevent the moral order from breaking down.
Nowadays, classical liberals are misrepresented on purpose, in order to fit into a tight ideological framework. Something which will obviously fail eventually, just sit and watch.--Daanschr 10:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] School/Tradition

I think liberalism should be added to the "school/tradition" section of Mill's sidebar. It seems pretty obvious, and I doubt anyone will disagree, so I'm going to go ahead and put it in. If, for some reason, someone does disagree, let me know here and we'll discuss it. Enigma00 22:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WTF?

What on earth has happened to this article? I can't figure out what's gone wrong...Anyone? Enigma00 (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Danny lost for fixing the article. Enigma00 (talk) 05:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the section of the article that claims Mill was an environmentalist. The quotes used indicate mainly that he wishes the population and population densities to remain static, not out of care for the environment, but for his own personal comfort. I realize he did not want to the see the earth raped, but he meant that on a much larger scale. He hardly seems to care about the green nature of cities. Therefore, I propose that someone take some time to thoroughly demonstrate how the his quotes in the "Environmentalist" section actually prove the section header. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.47.137 (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The section I added does not claim that Mills was an 'environmentalist' - the term and many of the concepts simple didn't exist at the time. The exact phrase I used was:
Mill's work was influential in the development of Green Economics - in particular , Book IV, chapter VI of "Principles of Political Economy": "Of the Stationary State" [11].
The heading is 'Environmentalism' - and the contribution demonstrates the influence of his thinking in this field which deserves credit.
You say: "he quotes used indicate mainly that he wishes the population and population densities to remain static, not out of care for the environment, but for his own personal comfort."
The quotes given, state not only concern for his personal comfort, but greater concerns about the well being of mankind - the quote which starts as follows illustrates this well:
Nor is there much satisfaction in contemplating the world with nothing left to the spontaneous activity of nature....
You say:I realize he did not want to the see the earth raped, but he meant that on a much larger scale.


I'm not sure what you mean here? What is 'larger scale' than the 'earth'(sic)? Environmetalists think at a global scale - and you are suggesting that Mills was doing the same thing. This rather re-inforces Mills as a 'proto-environmentlist' don't you think.
I think the quotes speak for themselves - the section I added consists largely of Mill's own words and are more than adequate to make the point. There is indeed a greater proportion of source material compared to interpretation of his 'economic philosophy' and justification that he was either a supporter of 'free markets' or 'socialism'.
Mills also applied his utilitarian and liberal philosophy to our treatment of the animal world:
http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol4no3_2005/gandhi_ahimsa.htm
"And, indeed, true to Windham's predictions, early animal welfare substantially increased the intrusion of the law into the lives of the poor in a bid to render them capable of self-regulative obedience. Notably, it is precisely in praise of this increased government interference that John Stuart Mill underwrites, in his 1848 Principles of Political Economy, the achievements of early animal welfare. In his words: The reasons for legal intervention in favour of children, apply no less strongly in the case of these unfortunate slaves and victims of the most brutal part of mankind, the lower animals. It is by the grossest misunderstanding of the principles of liberty, that the infliction of exemplary punishment on ruffianism practised towards these defenceless creatures has been treated as a meddling by government with things beyond its province; an interference with domestic life. The domestic life of domestic tyrants is one of the things which it is most imperative on the law to interfere with ...' (Mill, 1965, 958-959).
Mill, J. S. (1965), Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to Social Philosophy , ed. W. I. Ashley (Augustus M. Kelley: New York).
http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol4no3_2005/gandhi_ahimsa.htm
If anything the section should be expanded - and Mill given proper recognition for the far-reaching influence of his thinking.--Dean Morrison (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)