5 ms·

"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

"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?

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?