11 ms·

On Liberty (1859) [pdf]

167 points by mrfusion 6y ago

young_unixer 6y ago
"Mill’s thinking on women’s rights was influenced by his wife, Harriet Taylor Mill (1807-1858). In 1869 Mill published his famous essay 'The Subjection of Women', in favour of equality of the sexes." https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/parliamentary-collections/1866-suffrage-petition/john-stuart-mill/ https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transforming... You know what's funny? He was early in the fight for sex equality, but if he lived today he would probably be qualified as a sexist by the "progressive" mob for wanting equality of opportunity instead of equality of outcome.
- LeonB 6y ago
  If he was alive today he would probably update his views- just as he updated them in his lifetime.
  - ngcc_hk 6y ago
    Yes. That is the difference between a good and a bad one. Inconsistent one may say. But that is life. Even for philosopher.
    - LeonB 6y ago
      Something as simple as "Pythagoras' theorem" can move forward through time and remain correct, but a complex philosophy that was itself created in response to the conditions of the time can't be seen as "universal" or "timeless".
- xpe 6y ago
  I could be wrong, but your last sentence seems to be an ideological jab. I say this because you use the phrase 'by the "progressive" mob'. Please clarify if there is something I'm missing. > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That destroys the curiosity this site exists for. - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html It is certainly possible to make a variation of your statement without such loaded language. I'm sorry to have to say this, but you've also made an overly shallow (and uninteresting) characterization of the ethics underlying progressive causes.
- badRNG 6y ago
  > He was early in the fight for sex equality, but if he lived today he would probably be qualified as a sexist by the "progressive" mob for wanting equality of opportunity instead of equality of outcome. This "equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome" discussion is a mischaracterization of the position of "the progressive mob" that is misguided at best, dishonest at worst. Historically, in feminist, anti-colonial, and anti-racist circles, an inequality of outcome, on the basis of race or sex is the best indicator one would have of an inequality of opportunity. This is why the "separate but equal" doctrine of Plessy V. Ferguson was manifestly unequal: it consistently resulted in unequal outcomes. Those that hold that certain races or sexes are inferior conclude that these inequalities are due to the natural, inherent superiority of men/whites/westerners/etc rather than an inequality of opportunity. It doesn't take being in the so-called "progressive mob" to reject that line of reasoning.
  - young_unixer 6y ago
    > an inequality of outcome, on the basis of race or sex is the best indicator one would have of an inequality of opportunity. It's good if you use it as an indicator, but it's currently used as "evidence" and as a justification to give certain advantages to certain groups under the (almost always unproven) assumption that there's inequality of opportunity. For example: quota laws, and affirmative action in general. Quota laws and affirmative action that are notably pushed by progressive mob that I talk about, so I don't see the mischaracterization.
    - badRNG 6y ago
      Inequality "of outcome" is the best evidence one can have of inequality "of opportunity", and again, it was the primary evidence in the Brown v. Board of Education overturn of Plessy v. Ferguson. The distinction didn't hold water in 1954, and I don't think it holds water in 2020. Consistent inequality on the basis of sex or race is the principle evidence that there is inequality "of opportunity."
      - young_unixer 6y ago
        > Consistent inequality on the basis of sex or race is the principle evidence that there is inequality "of opportunity." How so?
yasp 6y ago
Why is this trending right now?
- creddit 6y ago
  Because many people see the prevalence of the cultural phenomenon know as “cancel culture” to be a new means of societal control in opposition to the values of Liberty Mill espouses. That’s my guess at least. Can’t say for sure why anyone upvotes anything.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - nine_k 6y ago
    I upvoted exactly for this.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- SamReidHughes 6y ago
  So you can download a personal copy while you're still allowed to.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    Not even Disney can get that copyright extended
    - virmundi 6y ago
      Allowed in the sense that those in cancel culture and the like will cancel the book. Remember that BLM has leaders that are trained Marxists[1]. Marxists are not the most sympathetic to free speech. 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM5zUwiCTzw&t=1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM5zUwiCTzw&t=1s
      - 6y ago
acabal 6y ago
Also as an epub/azw3 for your ereader at Standard Ebooks: https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/john-stuart-mill/on-liberty https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/john-stuart-mill/on-libert...
- brigandish 6y ago
  There's also an HTML version at https://www.bartleby.com/130/ https://www.bartleby.com/130/ There can't be enough ways to get this work in front of people.
rayiner 6y ago
The dedication to his deceased wife hit me in the feels. > To the beloved and deplored memory of her who was the inspirer, and in part the author, of all that is best in my writings- the friend and wife whose exalted sense of truth and right was my strongest incitement, and whose approbation was my chief reward—I dedicate this volume. Like all that I have written for many years, it belongs as much to her as to me; but the work as it stands has had, in a very insufficient degree, the inestimable advantage of her revision; some of the most important por- tions having been reserved for a more careful re-examination, which they are now never destined to receive. Were I but capable of interpret- ing to the world one half the great thoughts and noble feelings which are buried in her grave, I should be the medium of a greater benefit to it, than is ever likely to arise from anything that I can write, unprompted and unassisted by her all but unrivalled wisdom.
HenryKissinger 6y ago
Can old philosophical texts like this be used in legal arguments and affect the outcome of a trial or a court's judgement? Just curious.
- frandroid 6y ago
  Scarcely. IANA(C)L, but you would have to find an area of law that is not very well legislated, and then you would have to exhaust existing areas of national and international law, comparable laws from other countries, constitutional law, jurisprudence, still finding yourself wanting, and even then you would do much better to use contemporary philosophers, some of which might be descended from Mill in their philosophical outlook.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
dvt 6y ago
Just a few of the ideas that this seminal text brought to the fore: - The Marketplace of Ideas - The Harm Principle - Utilitarianism as the moral mechanism of social policy One of my all-time favorite pieces of political philosophy. I wish more people (not just philosophers or political scientists) took the time to read it. Also consider checking out Hobbes' Leviathan[1] and Rousseau's On the Social Contract[2]. [1] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm [2] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46333/46333-h/46333-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46333/46333-h/46333-h.htm
- xpe 6y ago
  > Utilitarianism as the moral mechanism of social policy Is this a quotation? A phrase from a particular work? Could you share the context? I do not accept that utilitarianism is "the" moral mechanism of social policy. Yes, many economists use utility maximization in their analyses, but there is a diversity of thought around many things, such as (but not limited to): (a) what should utility include; (b) the functional form of utility (the sum/average? the minimum? something else?); and (c) to what extent reductionist theories of happiness/contentment/whatever are useful tools given that humans exist interdependently, with biological, tribal, social, and intellectual connections. There is a whole field of thought that digs into these variations.
  - dvt 6y ago
    > Yes, many economists use utility maximization in their analyses This has nothing to do with economists; the Western legal system is (more or less) based on the weighing of different interests (definitionally: utilitarianism). There are, of course, a few exceptions -- which graze deontology, and even rarer still virtue ethics and (more historically) some divine command theory -- but overall, I'd say that yeah, we're pretty much utilitarian. > There is a whole field of thought that digs into these variations. Agreed, ethics is a rich and valuable field.
    - xpe 6y ago
      Could you please answer my other question: >> Utilitarianism as the moral mechanism of social policy > "Is this a quotation? A phrase from a particular work? Could you share the context?"
gentleman11 6y ago
Old ideas about government and liberty are under attack from both the left and the right these days, not to mention the substantial portion of the world living under authoritarianism. I have not read this book yet, so thanks for sharing the link
xpe 6y ago
I've noticed what may be a pattern in many HN discussions: a particular philosophy, such as stoicism, makes the rounds. (I would expect there is a common cause, such as a popular lecture, but that common cause is not always clear.) Given that we have many thousands of readers here, I think it is better to have a diversity of philosophical explorations (rather than intense interest only on a few). For example: A. There are variations within utilitarianism that Mill lays out but does not resolve. For example, 'rule utilitarianism' or 'act utilitarianism' [1] B. Another level out, there many theories of political economy that contrast with utilitarianism. C. Political economy is a fascinating area. Many people already read Milton Friedman, so I often recommend reading Arthur Okun's "Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff" as a counterpoint [2] D. Go another level out, and you will find many theories of ethics that are worth examining. 1: https://www.iep.utm.edu/mill-eth/#H5 2: https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/files/content/docs/OKUN_EQUALITY_AND_EFFICIENCY_(AS08).PDF
arminiusreturns 6y ago
A classic everyone should read, especially today. Individual liberty is increasingly disregarded, belittled, and discarded, and I find that extremely dangerous. JSM is one of the handful of pillars of that thinking whose eloquence makes it accessible to all.
- supernova87a 6y ago
  >A classic everyone should read, especially today. Individual liberty is increasingly disregarded, belittled, and discarded, and I find that extremely dangerous. JSM is one of the handful of pillars of that thinking whose eloquence makes it accessible to all. Wow, well I have to voice some public disbelief over this statement. Maybe you just write it as a reflex? You think personal liberties are at a low point? I must live in a different world. We are in the age of the greatest emphasis on personal choice, personal satisfaction, and personal decision making in recent history. If anything we are in danger of the opposite -- personal freedoms making us unable to do or support things that are for the communal good. Everything that is marketed to us, that enters our political discourse, that is stressed in our daily lives (as well as what many people seek to display to others) is about you deciding what you want and not having to put up with someone telling you what to do. "You do your way", "how you want it, when you want it", etc. The ease of finding subcultures and not having to have your individual interests and quirks diluted by a generic community. The ease of creating/joining isolated interest groups and segregating onesself from your neighbors, community, state, country. (This is not a new thesis -- written about extensively such as in "Bowling Alone".) It's driven by our consumerism, of course, but it leaks into our government and other aspects of societal life very strongly. Note today, even governments almost feel they cannot force people to act in ways that benefit the community, and have to ask politely people to do things like wear masks (for fear of backlash and being voted out for violating people's personal liberties -- or what they believe are their liberties). JSM was writing in an age where tyranny (or lack of recourse to rebel against tyranny) and material deprivation were common, social mobility was almost non-existent, and the notion that you could have a prosperous life without relying on the rest of society (and its rigid rules) laughable. If you feel that (at least in the US) personal liberty is at risk, I shudder to think how your head would not explode in a real authoritarian country.
lukev 6y ago
This is, of course, an eloquent expression of a vital philosophy. We should be seriously grateful that it gained serious uptake through the 18th and 19th centuries, giving us(1) the democracy and freedom we enjoy today. Everyone should read it. However, critical thought about how to run a just, fair society should not stop with 1859. Particularly in light of events in the 20th century, and with observations of the failure modes of actual democracies (which have (with some exceptions) only existed since the late 18th century). We should continue to read and reason about how to make our society even fairer, and even better, and how to prevent failure modes and regression to a less free state. There is too much good material here to cite (it has been the focus of basically all political philosophy from WW2 forward) but relevant to this discussion, I can recommend Popper's "The Open Society and its Enemies", and Hannah Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil". Also of interest are historical treatments of how support of libertarianism in the mid-18th century could coincide with the most brutal zenith of race-based slavery. I mention these because, I presume, this is being posted and upvoted in the context of the current political discourse. Understanding more _recent_ political philosophy, with more data available, is critical if one actually wants to understand and engage with movements such as (mentioned elsewhere in the comments) "cancel culture", or how to combat massive disinformation which, in the words of Sartre, "seek[s] not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert." 1. does not apply to all skin colors, genders or sexual orientations
- gentleman11 6y ago
  Curious why posts like this get downvoted so often. Is there something I am missing? It seems like a reasonable statement, and whether you agree with it or not, it’s worded in a way to encourage discussion
  - concordDance 6y ago
    I think it's this bit: "does not apply to all skin colors, genders or sexual orientations" If he'd said "does not apply to all countries" he'd probably not get downvoted, but the idea that people of different sexes and races don't have equal freedom is a hotly contested political question in many countries.
imustbeevil 6y ago
> Though society is not founded on a contract, and though no good purpose is answered by inventing a contract in order to deduce social obligations from it, every one who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest. > This conduct consists, first, in not injuring the interests of one another; or rather certain interests, which, either by express legal provision or by tacit understanding, ought to be considered as rights; and secondly, in each person’s bearing his share (to be fixed on some equitable principle) of the labours and sacrifices incurred for defending the society or its members from injury and molestation. > These conditions society is justified in enforcing, at all costs to those who endeavour to withhold fulfilment. Nor is this all that society may do. The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others, or wanting in due consideration for their welfare, without going to the length of violating any of their constituted rights. The offender may then be justly punished by opinion, though not by law. > As soon as any part of a person’s conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with it, becomes open to discussion. > But there is no room for entertaining any such question when a person’s conduct affects the interests of no persons besides himself, or needs not affect them unless they like (all the persons concerned being of full age, and the ordinary amount of understanding). In all such cases, there should be perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand the consequences. > It would be a great misunderstanding of this doctrine to suppose that it is one of selfish indifference, which pretends that human beings have no business with each other’s conduct in life, and that they should not concern themselves about the well-doing or well-being of one another, unless their own interest is involved. Instead of any diminution, there is need of a great increase of disinterested exertion to promote the good of others. But disinterested benevolence can find other instruments to persuade people to their good than whips and scourges, either of the literal or the metaphorical sort. I am the last person to undervalue the self-regarding virtues; they are only second in importance, if even second, to the social. I cannot imagine what the other people in this thread think he wrote to respond as if it supports their idea of society not having authority over policing harmful conduct.
- rjkennedy98 6y ago
person_of_color 6y ago
*On Liberty (for white people).
- abecedarius 6y ago
  https://www.aier.org/article/john-stuart-mill-on-slavery-and-the-american-civil-war/ https://www.aier.org/article/john-stuart-mill-on-slavery-and...
smhmd 6y ago
One of my more used quotes. Page 35 on the document. > He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. The rational position for him would be suspension of judgment, and unless he contents himself with that, he is either led by authority, or adopts, like the generality of the world, the side to which he feels most inclination. Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form; he must feel the whole force of the difficulty which the true view of the subject has to encounter and dispose of; else he will never really possess himself of the portion of truth which meets and removes that difficulty.
- Pinegulf 6y ago
  Foundation of the concept of 'Steel-manning'. I'd like to see this idea more wide-spread. Heck, i'd make it mandatory for positions of trust. Ability to see both sides.
  - Reedx 6y ago
    Absolutely. It would be amazing to see political debates (and discourse generally) where they're able to steelman each other's position and interact in good faith. That would have a profound effect on our democracy. Instead we get strawmen, soundbites and kayfabe. Somehow we've got to get away from this.
    - klyrs 6y ago
      > Somehow we've got to get away from this. pssst put down your phone. Posted from my phone. Goddammit.
- 6y ago
jessriedel 6y ago
Can't recommend this essay highly enough. In particular, it gives a thorough defense of the claim that the importance of protecting freedom of speech ought to guide our personal action and community norms; freedom of speech is not just about restrictions on the government like the first amendment, as so often is unwisely argued.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  I think that naturally leads to a distinction of positive and negative liberty - having the negative liberty against government censorship is useless is you do not have the positive liberty of expression. This applies just as well to a ton of subjects, and is also I think lacking very severely in pre-modern philosophy and does derived from them. It also personally led me to a total shift in policy when I realized how meek positive liberty is for the vast majority of people.
nsm 6y ago
Jonathan Haidt's org has a nicely illustrated, highly abridged version called "All Minus One" - https://heterodoxacademy.org/library/all-minus-one/ https://heterodoxacademy.org/library/all-minus-one/
claudeganon 6y ago
A relevant quote that seems to always be passed over in discussion of this work- “Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement.“ -which of course was intended as an expression of support for the British colonial project in India.
austincheney 6y ago
The two things I learned most from On Liberty is: 1. The greatest enemy of liberty is a repressive majority. 2. Truth is the result of two, or more, opposing points of view. Essentially most people seek agreement, not truth, and will actively suppress truth when agreement is challenged.
senthil_rajasek 6y ago
Came here to point out that this was written before economics was considered a science. This was written by a white man with a white life experience. A lot of the ideas here are unproven and have no rational basis.

167 points by mrfusion 6y ago

"Mill’s thinking on women’s rights was influenced by his wife, Harriet Taylor Mill (1807-1858). In 1869 Mill published his famous essay 'The Subjection of Women', in favour of equality of the sexes." https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/parliamentary-collections/1866-suffrage-petition/john-stuart-mill/ https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transforming... You know what's funny? He was early in the fight for sex equality, but if he lived today he would probably be qualified as a sexist by the "progressive" mob for wanting equality of opportunity instead of equality of outcome.

LeonB 6y ago
If he was alive today he would probably update his views- just as he updated them in his lifetime.
- ngcc_hk 6y ago
  Yes. That is the difference between a good and a bad one. Inconsistent one may say. But that is life. Even for philosopher.
  - LeonB 6y ago
    Something as simple as "Pythagoras' theorem" can move forward through time and remain correct, but a complex philosophy that was itself created in response to the conditions of the time can't be seen as "universal" or "timeless".
xpe 6y ago
I could be wrong, but your last sentence seems to be an ideological jab. I say this because you use the phrase 'by the "progressive" mob'. Please clarify if there is something I'm missing. > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That destroys the curiosity this site exists for. - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html It is certainly possible to make a variation of your statement without such loaded language. I'm sorry to have to say this, but you've also made an overly shallow (and uninteresting) characterization of the ethics underlying progressive causes.
badRNG 6y ago
> He was early in the fight for sex equality, but if he lived today he would probably be qualified as a sexist by the "progressive" mob for wanting equality of opportunity instead of equality of outcome. This "equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome" discussion is a mischaracterization of the position of "the progressive mob" that is misguided at best, dishonest at worst. Historically, in feminist, anti-colonial, and anti-racist circles, an inequality of outcome, on the basis of race or sex is the best indicator one would have of an inequality of opportunity. This is why the "separate but equal" doctrine of Plessy V. Ferguson was manifestly unequal: it consistently resulted in unequal outcomes. Those that hold that certain races or sexes are inferior conclude that these inequalities are due to the natural, inherent superiority of men/whites/westerners/etc rather than an inequality of opportunity. It doesn't take being in the so-called "progressive mob" to reject that line of reasoning.
- young_unixer 6y ago
  > an inequality of outcome, on the basis of race or sex is the best indicator one would have of an inequality of opportunity. It's good if you use it as an indicator, but it's currently used as "evidence" and as a justification to give certain advantages to certain groups under the (almost always unproven) assumption that there's inequality of opportunity. For example: quota laws, and affirmative action in general. Quota laws and affirmative action that are notably pushed by progressive mob that I talk about, so I don't see the mischaracterization.
  - badRNG 6y ago
    Inequality "of outcome" is the best evidence one can have of inequality "of opportunity", and again, it was the primary evidence in the Brown v. Board of Education overturn of Plessy v. Ferguson. The distinction didn't hold water in 1954, and I don't think it holds water in 2020. Consistent inequality on the basis of sex or race is the principle evidence that there is inequality "of opportunity."
    - young_unixer 6y ago
      > Consistent inequality on the basis of sex or race is the principle evidence that there is inequality "of opportunity." How so?

yasp 6y ago

Why is this trending right now?

creddit 6y ago
Because many people see the prevalence of the cultural phenomenon know as “cancel culture” to be a new means of societal control in opposition to the values of Liberty Mill espouses. That’s my guess at least. Can’t say for sure why anyone upvotes anything.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- nine_k 6y ago
  I upvoted exactly for this.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
SamReidHughes 6y ago
So you can download a personal copy while you're still allowed to.
- klyrs 6y ago
  Not even Disney can get that copyright extended
  - virmundi 6y ago
    Allowed in the sense that those in cancel culture and the like will cancel the book. Remember that BLM has leaders that are trained Marxists[1]. Marxists are not the most sympathetic to free speech. 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM5zUwiCTzw&t=1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM5zUwiCTzw&t=1s
    - 6y ago

acabal 6y ago

Also as an epub/azw3 for your ereader at Standard Ebooks: https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/john-stuart-mill/on-liberty https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/john-stuart-mill/on-libert...

brigandish 6y ago
There's also an HTML version at https://www.bartleby.com/130/ https://www.bartleby.com/130/ There can't be enough ways to get this work in front of people.

rayiner 6y ago

The dedication to his deceased wife hit me in the feels. > To the beloved and deplored memory of her who was the inspirer, and in part the author, of all that is best in my writings- the friend and wife whose exalted sense of truth and right was my strongest incitement, and whose approbation was my chief reward—I dedicate this volume. Like all that I have written for many years, it belongs as much to her as to me; but the work as it stands has had, in a very insufficient degree, the inestimable advantage of her revision; some of the most important por- tions having been reserved for a more careful re-examination, which they are now never destined to receive. Were I but capable of interpret- ing to the world one half the great thoughts and noble feelings which are buried in her grave, I should be the medium of a greater benefit to it, than is ever likely to arise from anything that I can write, unprompted and unassisted by her all but unrivalled wisdom.

HenryKissinger 6y ago

Can old philosophical texts like this be used in legal arguments and affect the outcome of a trial or a court's judgement? Just curious.

frandroid 6y ago
Scarcely. IANA(C)L, but you would have to find an area of law that is not very well legislated, and then you would have to exhaust existing areas of national and international law, comparable laws from other countries, constitutional law, jurisprudence, still finding yourself wanting, and even then you would do much better to use contemporary philosophers, some of which might be descended from Mill in their philosophical outlook.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

dvt 6y ago

Just a few of the ideas that this seminal text brought to the fore: - The Marketplace of Ideas - The Harm Principle - Utilitarianism as the moral mechanism of social policy One of my all-time favorite pieces of political philosophy. I wish more people (not just philosophers or political scientists) took the time to read it. Also consider checking out Hobbes' Leviathan[1] and Rousseau's On the Social Contract[2]. [1] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm [2] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46333/46333-h/46333-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46333/46333-h/46333-h.htm

xpe 6y ago
> Utilitarianism as the moral mechanism of social policy Is this a quotation? A phrase from a particular work? Could you share the context? I do not accept that utilitarianism is "the" moral mechanism of social policy. Yes, many economists use utility maximization in their analyses, but there is a diversity of thought around many things, such as (but not limited to): (a) what should utility include; (b) the functional form of utility (the sum/average? the minimum? something else?); and (c) to what extent reductionist theories of happiness/contentment/whatever are useful tools given that humans exist interdependently, with biological, tribal, social, and intellectual connections. There is a whole field of thought that digs into these variations.
- dvt 6y ago
  > Yes, many economists use utility maximization in their analyses This has nothing to do with economists; the Western legal system is (more or less) based on the weighing of different interests (definitionally: utilitarianism). There are, of course, a few exceptions -- which graze deontology, and even rarer still virtue ethics and (more historically) some divine command theory -- but overall, I'd say that yeah, we're pretty much utilitarian. > There is a whole field of thought that digs into these variations. Agreed, ethics is a rich and valuable field.
  - xpe 6y ago
    Could you please answer my other question: >> Utilitarianism as the moral mechanism of social policy > "Is this a quotation? A phrase from a particular work? Could you share the context?"

gentleman11 6y ago

Old ideas about government and liberty are under attack from both the left and the right these days, not to mention the substantial portion of the world living under authoritarianism. I have not read this book yet, so thanks for sharing the link

xpe 6y ago

I've noticed what may be a pattern in many HN discussions: a particular philosophy, such as stoicism, makes the rounds. (I would expect there is a common cause, such as a popular lecture, but that common cause is not always clear.) Given that we have many thousands of readers here, I think it is better to have a diversity of philosophical explorations (rather than intense interest only on a few). For example: A. There are variations within utilitarianism that Mill lays out but does not resolve. For example, 'rule utilitarianism' or 'act utilitarianism' [1] B. Another level out, there many theories of political economy that contrast with utilitarianism. C. Political economy is a fascinating area. Many people already read Milton Friedman, so I often recommend reading Arthur Okun's "Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff" as a counterpoint [2] D. Go another level out, and you will find many theories of ethics that are worth examining. 1: https://www.iep.utm.edu/mill-eth/#H5 2: https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/files/content/docs/OKUN_EQUALITY_AND_EFFICIENCY_(AS08).PDF

arminiusreturns 6y ago

A classic everyone should read, especially today. Individual liberty is increasingly disregarded, belittled, and discarded, and I find that extremely dangerous. JSM is one of the handful of pillars of that thinking whose eloquence makes it accessible to all.

supernova87a 6y ago
>A classic everyone should read, especially today. Individual liberty is increasingly disregarded, belittled, and discarded, and I find that extremely dangerous. JSM is one of the handful of pillars of that thinking whose eloquence makes it accessible to all. Wow, well I have to voice some public disbelief over this statement. Maybe you just write it as a reflex? You think personal liberties are at a low point? I must live in a different world. We are in the age of the greatest emphasis on personal choice, personal satisfaction, and personal decision making in recent history. If anything we are in danger of the opposite -- personal freedoms making us unable to do or support things that are for the communal good. Everything that is marketed to us, that enters our political discourse, that is stressed in our daily lives (as well as what many people seek to display to others) is about you deciding what you want and not having to put up with someone telling you what to do. "You do your way", "how you want it, when you want it", etc. The ease of finding subcultures and not having to have your individual interests and quirks diluted by a generic community. The ease of creating/joining isolated interest groups and segregating onesself from your neighbors, community, state, country. (This is not a new thesis -- written about extensively such as in "Bowling Alone".) It's driven by our consumerism, of course, but it leaks into our government and other aspects of societal life very strongly. Note today, even governments almost feel they cannot force people to act in ways that benefit the community, and have to ask politely people to do things like wear masks (for fear of backlash and being voted out for violating people's personal liberties -- or what they believe are their liberties). JSM was writing in an age where tyranny (or lack of recourse to rebel against tyranny) and material deprivation were common, social mobility was almost non-existent, and the notion that you could have a prosperous life without relying on the rest of society (and its rigid rules) laughable. If you feel that (at least in the US) personal liberty is at risk, I shudder to think how your head would not explode in a real authoritarian country.

lukev 6y ago

This is, of course, an eloquent expression of a vital philosophy. We should be seriously grateful that it gained serious uptake through the 18th and 19th centuries, giving us(1) the democracy and freedom we enjoy today. Everyone should read it. However, critical thought about how to run a just, fair society should not stop with 1859. Particularly in light of events in the 20th century, and with observations of the failure modes of actual democracies (which have (with some exceptions) only existed since the late 18th century). We should continue to read and reason about how to make our society even fairer, and even better, and how to prevent failure modes and regression to a less free state. There is too much good material here to cite (it has been the focus of basically all political philosophy from WW2 forward) but relevant to this discussion, I can recommend Popper's "The Open Society and its Enemies", and Hannah Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil". Also of interest are historical treatments of how support of libertarianism in the mid-18th century could coincide with the most brutal zenith of race-based slavery. I mention these because, I presume, this is being posted and upvoted in the context of the current political discourse. Understanding more _recent_ political philosophy, with more data available, is critical if one actually wants to understand and engage with movements such as (mentioned elsewhere in the comments) "cancel culture", or how to combat massive disinformation which, in the words of Sartre, "seek[s] not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert." 1. does not apply to all skin colors, genders or sexual orientations

gentleman11 6y ago
Curious why posts like this get downvoted so often. Is there something I am missing? It seems like a reasonable statement, and whether you agree with it or not, it’s worded in a way to encourage discussion
- concordDance 6y ago
  I think it's this bit: "does not apply to all skin colors, genders or sexual orientations" If he'd said "does not apply to all countries" he'd probably not get downvoted, but the idea that people of different sexes and races don't have equal freedom is a hotly contested political question in many countries.

imustbeevil 6y ago

> Though society is not founded on a contract, and though no good purpose is answered by inventing a contract in order to deduce social obligations from it, every one who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest. > This conduct consists, first, in not injuring the interests of one another; or rather certain interests, which, either by express legal provision or by tacit understanding, ought to be considered as rights; and secondly, in each person’s bearing his share (to be fixed on some equitable principle) of the labours and sacrifices incurred for defending the society or its members from injury and molestation. > These conditions society is justified in enforcing, at all costs to those who endeavour to withhold fulfilment. Nor is this all that society may do. The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others, or wanting in due consideration for their welfare, without going to the length of violating any of their constituted rights. The offender may then be justly punished by opinion, though not by law. > As soon as any part of a person’s conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with it, becomes open to discussion. > But there is no room for entertaining any such question when a person’s conduct affects the interests of no persons besides himself, or needs not affect them unless they like (all the persons concerned being of full age, and the ordinary amount of understanding). In all such cases, there should be perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand the consequences. > It would be a great misunderstanding of this doctrine to suppose that it is one of selfish indifference, which pretends that human beings have no business with each other’s conduct in life, and that they should not concern themselves about the well-doing or well-being of one another, unless their own interest is involved. Instead of any diminution, there is need of a great increase of disinterested exertion to promote the good of others. But disinterested benevolence can find other instruments to persuade people to their good than whips and scourges, either of the literal or the metaphorical sort. I am the last person to undervalue the self-regarding virtues; they are only second in importance, if even second, to the social. I cannot imagine what the other people in this thread think he wrote to respond as if it supports their idea of society not having authority over policing harmful conduct.

rjkennedy98 6y ago

person_of_color 6y ago

*On Liberty (for white people).

abecedarius 6y ago
https://www.aier.org/article/john-stuart-mill-on-slavery-and-the-american-civil-war/ https://www.aier.org/article/john-stuart-mill-on-slavery-and...

smhmd 6y ago

One of my more used quotes. Page 35 on the document. > He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. The rational position for him would be suspension of judgment, and unless he contents himself with that, he is either led by authority, or adopts, like the generality of the world, the side to which he feels most inclination. Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form; he must feel the whole force of the difficulty which the true view of the subject has to encounter and dispose of; else he will never really possess himself of the portion of truth which meets and removes that difficulty.

Pinegulf 6y ago
Foundation of the concept of 'Steel-manning'. I'd like to see this idea more wide-spread. Heck, i'd make it mandatory for positions of trust. Ability to see both sides.
- Reedx 6y ago
  Absolutely. It would be amazing to see political debates (and discourse generally) where they're able to steelman each other's position and interact in good faith. That would have a profound effect on our democracy. Instead we get strawmen, soundbites and kayfabe. Somehow we've got to get away from this.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    > Somehow we've got to get away from this. pssst put down your phone. Posted from my phone. Goddammit.
6y ago

jessriedel 6y ago

Can't recommend this essay highly enough. In particular, it gives a thorough defense of the claim that the importance of protecting freedom of speech ought to guide our personal action and community norms; freedom of speech is not just about restrictions on the government like the first amendment, as so often is unwisely argued.

sudosysgen 6y ago
I think that naturally leads to a distinction of positive and negative liberty - having the negative liberty against government censorship is useless is you do not have the positive liberty of expression. This applies just as well to a ton of subjects, and is also I think lacking very severely in pre-modern philosophy and does derived from them. It also personally led me to a total shift in policy when I realized how meek positive liberty is for the vast majority of people.

nsm 6y ago

Jonathan Haidt's org has a nicely illustrated, highly abridged version called "All Minus One" - https://heterodoxacademy.org/library/all-minus-one/ https://heterodoxacademy.org/library/all-minus-one/

claudeganon 6y ago

A relevant quote that seems to always be passed over in discussion of this work- “Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement.“ -which of course was intended as an expression of support for the British colonial project in India.

austincheney 6y ago

The two things I learned most from On Liberty is: 1. The greatest enemy of liberty is a repressive majority. 2. Truth is the result of two, or more, opposing points of view. Essentially most people seek agreement, not truth, and will actively suppress truth when agreement is challenged.

senthil_rajasek 6y ago

Came here to point out that this was written before economics was considered a science. This was written by a white man with a white life experience. A lot of the ideas here are unproven and have no rational basis.