IS THERE A CLASH BETWEEN MILLS PRINCIPLE OF UTILI Essays

IS THERE A CLASH BETWEEN MILL'S PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY AND HIS PRINCIPLE OF LIBERTY? In 2006, before a crucial vote in the UK Houses of Parliament that would enact legislation banning smoking in public areas, articles were written with arguments both for and against the ban, and cited on both sides was John Stuart Mill (Reeves: 2007). Whilst some quoted his harm principle and stressed the dangers of second-hand smoke, others drew upon his writings on utility, claiming that the pain of the smokers whose freedoms would be curtailed would far outweigh the happiness of the non-smokers (Reeves: 2007). In this example lies the fundamental paradox of Mill's ideology - ensuring the freedom of the individual, whilst at the same time preserving the happiness of the collective. When reviewed as an ideology, as well as when applied to practise, we are able to recognise fundamental clashes in ideas which makes his position on issues, particularly ones of our modern day, unclear. However, it is certainly interesting to note that Mill is not entirely blind to such clashes - however when they occur we see that fundamentally, he is primarily a libertarian, with utilitarianism as a secondary preoccupation. It is first important to establish Mill's own interpretation of liberal and utilitarian philosophy, and question whether such ideologies are, on the surface, inherently compatible. In On Liberty Mill's strong commitment to liberalism is identifiable, promoting individual sovereignty over matters of thought, feeling and expression (Mill: 2015). He asserts that society may only intervene in the actions of others if such actions harm, or pose a likely threat of harm to others - the maxims both of individual autonomy and social responsibility form what Mill titles the harm principle' (Mill: 2015). On this basis, Mill allows individuals to choose for themselves what to do with their own existence, whilst ensuring that others are entitled to their freedom from pain or danger. However Mill, who was brought up in an environment that heavily promoted utilitarianism, attempts to put forward a second value - in Utilitarianism, it is suggested that happiness is the only desirable ends of human e xistence, and that society has a responsibility to strive for the greatest possible happiness of its people (Reeves: 2007, Mill: 2015). There is a clear attempt to show that the principles can co-exist by asserting that liberty is indispensable in promoting the greatest happiness, but it must be considered that the nature of his ideas creates a conflict of interest (Burley: 2009). The major distinction between the basis' of liberty and utility is their commitment to individualism and collectivism, respectively. It is clear that in On Liberty Mill presents a significant affinity for individualism and eccentricity, claiming that diversion from custom is vital in preventing tyranny of the majority (Mill: 2015, Crisp: 1997). Contrastingly, in his discussion of utility, Mill appears to suggest that individual misery is acceptable if it justifies majority collective happiness. (Struhl: 2007). We are able to detect from this that there is a fundamental conflict between Mill's ideas - his d esire for liberty is ultimately curtailed by his desire for individuals to act in a way that would promote a progressive and harmonious society. Inconsistencies within the principles can be highlighted in instances where the suppression of minority views would lead to the greatest happiness. Mill is strongly committed to the freedom of expression and action, in keeping with the harm principle, as he believed constant challenge to supposed truths was fundamental to societal progression (Mill: 2015). However, if the suppression of such views and actions would lead to the greatest happiness in society, then it seems Mill would have to make a choice between the utility of society and the liberty of the individual. Berlin makes reference to periods in history where there was significant social demand for the burning of witches, which would of course bring the accused witches harm and thus should be subject to societal intervention in accordance with the harm principle (Berlin: 1969). However to do so society would have to neglect the greatest happiness, assuming that the demand for the burning was greater than the witches desire t o live. Similarly, it has been questioned whether, under the principles of utility, genocide