Analysing J.S.Mill ( II )

Jorge Aliaga Cacho

By Jorge Aliaga Cacho

To formulate how Mill constructed his theory of government, we would like first to refer to some ideas of Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832) concerning the progress of society. Bentham and, Mill's father, James Mill (1773 - 1836), were eminent utilitarian philosophers and despite evolutionary developments in the thought of John Stuart Mill, their thought reflects the standpoints of utilitarian philosophy.

Concerning the progress of society, Bentham considers three epochs: 'the first in which every man is actuated by the vindictive principle, in inflicting arbitrary punishment for a received offence more or less according to the greater or less violence of his passion. The second is the idea of a public being formed and established, the supreme power in the state, taking the rod of vengeance out of the hand of the individual, using it according to settled rules still governing whoever in great measure by the same principle. The third is yet to come, in which all traces of the vindictive principle have been entirely obliterated. Prevention shall be the sole end of Penal Legislation. (Everett, Charles Warren, ''The Education of Jeremy Bentham'', Columbia University Press, 1931. Quoted by D. J. Hanning in his book ''The Mind of Jeremy Bentham'', Longmans, 1968, page 48).

According to John Stuart Mill, the proper functions of government are not fixed: in a backward state, Mill argued: a government's functions are more widely extended than in an advanced one. Referring to the character of a government or set of political institutions, his opinion was that they can't be fully evaluated if our intention is directed solely to the legitimate sphere of governmental functions. Admitting that the goodness of a government is necessarily placed within that sphere, Mill argues: 'its badness unhappily is not'.  (p. 199, prescribed text).

This insufficient estimation of the political institutions, particularly, its badness, Mill continues, places mankind subject to the affliction of any kind or degree of evil imposed by their own government. Furthermore, Mill said, the goodness of which social existence is capable can be incompatible with the constitution of the government. Apart from the indirect effects, Mill argues, that the direct intervention of public authorities has no known limits but those of human existence. and the influence of government on the well-being of society, Mill said, 'can be considered or estimated about nothing less than the whole of the interests of humanity'.

According to Mill, enumerating and classifying the elements of social well-being is not an easy job, but Mill does not deny the importance of such a classification. Mill thought that this classification started and finished with a partition of exigencies of society which in his view have two heads, namely, order and progress.

Mill stated that progress is a human want and it may be supposed to mean improvement. Concerning order he stated, it means preserving peace by ceasing private violence. Order is an indispensable attribute of government and those who are unable to make their orders obeyed, Mill considered, can not be said to govern. he also considered order a necessary condition of government but not the object of it.

( To be continued )