Mill and Bentham: Classical Liberalism and State Intervention
Classical liberalism traditionally opposes state intervention. However, Mill argued that intervention is sometimes necessary to guarantee equality, individual development, and self-improvement, which he believed were essential for happiness. He advocated for state-funded, free education for all, but also cautioned against excessive state control that could stifle individual thought and diversity. He believed in diverse educational approaches and universal access to culture, optimal working conditions, and protection from exploitation, requiring state intervention to achieve these goals.
Bentham’s Influence and Critique of Social Contract Theory
Bentham, Mill’s predecessor, critiqued the social contract theories of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Hobbes posited that in the state of nature, life is a “war of all against all,” driving individuals to form a social contract for self-preservation. This contract establishes the Leviathan, an absolute sovereign (in the 17th-century context, an absolute monarchy), to enforce order and prevent societal chaos. The law, according to Hobbes, should regulate behavior to prevent individuals from taking the law into their own hands.
Locke and Rousseau: Alternative Perspectives
Locke advocated for a parliamentary monarchy and the separation of powers (executive, judicial, and legislative) to prevent tyranny. Rousseau, conversely, believed that humans are inherently good but corrupted by society. He proposed a social contract based on the rule of the majority, ensuring minority voices are heard and considered.
Legitimacy and the Pursuit of Happiness
The legitimacy of the state, according to these thinkers, stems not from its origin but from its actions, specifically its ability to promote the interests and happiness of its citizens. This aligns with the utilitarian principle of maximizing happiness for the greatest number of people, often associated with universal suffrage.
Mill’s Social Liberalism and the Harm Principle
Mill, while influenced by Bentham, diverged by emphasizing individual development and questioning the classical liberal aversion to state intervention. He explored the extent to which society should have authority over the individual, introducing the “harm principle.” This principle states that society can only intervene in an individual’s actions if they cause harm to others. Actions that only harm the individual are beyond the scope of societal intervention, though advice may be offered.
Individual Obligations to Society
Mill acknowledged that individuals benefit from living in society and, therefore, have obligations to it. Drawing on Plato’s idea that those with knowledge should benefit society, Mill argued that individuals should contribute to the well-being of the community. This includes defending society when necessary. Society has a right to regulate interactions between individuals to prevent harm.
The Nature of Social Sciences
Mill recognized that the social sciences cannot achieve the same level of precision as the natural sciences due to the inherent freedom of human beings. This freedom allows for growth and self-actualization. Utilitarianism, in this context, values actions based on their consequences, not on absolute principles. Mill’s liberalism is thus characterized as a social liberalism, balancing individual liberty with social responsibility.