| John Stuart Mill's political philosophy is notable for what Nietzsche calls its "offensive clarity" concerning such themes as the primacy of social utility and the "golden rule." But if Mill is so clear, one would expect more agreement about his political philosophy than in fact exists. In this dissertation, I reread Mill's political philosophy in light of its key themes: utility, history, and liberty; and develop a new view of its intention and coherency. In order for a society to be "civilized" or worth defending, Mill believes, it must enable us to live together as equals under law. On the other hand, for such a society to be individually rewarding and individually defensible, it must be free. 1 argue that the connective tissue between these two aims---social utility and liberty---is, for Mill, the historical development of human character. This development increasingly resolves the tension between the individual and society. In the first three substantive chapters of the dissertation, I outline the roots of Mill's Benthamite notion of social utility; the very practical lessons which he thinks we learn from assessing democracy's progress in classical Athens, America, and England; and Mill's argument for associative, educated, and individualistic society.;In the second half of the dissertation, I explore problems that must be overcome in order to justify Mill's confidence that he has synthesized utility and liberty. Here, my interest is in the patterns of thought that Mill believes should structure the great social institutions of his time, especially religion, science, and philosophy. For Mill's liberal utilitarian society to function properly, traditional religion must be replaced by a science of society and by a humanistic religion, and negative dialectics must continue to challenge social conventions, including those of Mill's new society. I conclude by arguing that Mill's project is commendable insofar as it does not seek to replace philosophy with science or religion, but is not philosophic insofar as the liberal definition of key concepts such as civilization and progress do not adequately answer challenges from equally liberal, pre-modern philosophies of politics. |
