This is from JS Mill's 'On LIberty', Chapter V, Applications (the ending paragraphs):
Note how similar the quote in bold is to the quote Philip cites of Pious XII.To determine the point at which evils, so formidable to human freedom and advancement, begin, or rather at which they begin to predominate over the benefits attending the collective application of the force of society…is one of the most difficult and complicated questions in the art of government. It is, in a great measure, a question of detail, in which many and various considerations must be kept in view, and no absolute rule can be laid down.
But I believe that the practical principle in which safety resides, the ideal to be kept in view, the standard by which to test all arrangements intended for overcoming the difficulty, may be conveyed in these words: the greatest dissemination of power consistent with efficiency; but the greatest possible centralization of information, and diffusion of it from the centre.
The powers of administrative coercion and subordinate legislation possessed by the [central authority]… though perfectly justifiable in a case of first-rate national interest, would be wholly out of place in the superintendence of interests purely local. But a central organ of information and instruction for all the localities, would be equally valuable in all departments of administration. A government cannot have too much of the kind of activity which does not impede, but aids and stimulates, individual exertion and development. The mischief begins when, instead of calling forth the activity and powers of individuals and bodies, it substitutes its own activity for theirs; when, instead of informing, advising, and, upon occasion, denouncing, it makes them work in fetters, or bids them stand aside and does their work instead of them. The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it; and a State which postpones the interests of their mental expansion and elevation, to a little more of administrative skill, or that semblance of it which practice gives, in the details of business; a State which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes—will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything, will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish.
Despite my general distrust of Mill's utilitarian philosophy, I do respect that within his philosophy, he does make moral distinctions. Unlike Bentham or Mill Sr., J.S. Mill recognizes that some goods outweigh others and not just by the weight of pure neighbors. Mill does appreciate that certain intellectual and artistic pursuits are worth more in the long-run for human beings. It strikes me that this sense is here in your quotation, too.
ReplyDeleteObviously, I'm going to express concern as to whether Mill recognies the common good found in families, traditions, and other long-lasting associations. But what I like is an understanding that the individual has some purpose (activity and power, in his words) that the state can not fulfill by parentalism or by reducing people to adminstrators of the system.
Yet what I would ask of Mill is whether he recognizes a true telelogical end for human abilities and needs? Again, what is our purpose?
Sorry. That should read "pure numbers." "Pure neighbors"? If only. . . .
ReplyDeleteFrom my reading of Mill it seems to me that he is just fine recognizing the 'common good found in families, traditions...'l his main point is that A may find such good and B may not, and both should be free to live accordingly; no coercion.
ReplyDeleteLike you, I prefer JS Mill to Bentham.
In my reading of "On Liberty" I did not see a focus on a true teleological end for human abilities and needs. I suspect that Mill would leave this end to be found by each individual alone.
One person might consider his teleological end to be fathering as many children as possible (to pick something silly), and the other might tell the first that there is another better goal for his abilities. As long as no force is used, I suspect that these kinds of conversations are liberty-respecting and consistent with 'subsidiarity'. Would the critics of such approach call it 'relativistic' or 'devoid of universal meaning'? What alternative would they propose beyond merely voluntarily discussing the superiority of some teleological ends to others?
My problem is that from a Christian perspective, I would contend that we are not at all free to decide whether these intermediate goods are good or not. Now, they may not translate into whether one should be coerced into keeping one's obligations (though I think in family law, a parent should at least be, and maybe children in the care of their elders). Certainly, things should be kept as voluntary as possible, but if we conceive of the world as only the choices of individuals, then those intermediate commitments can be expected to dissolve or at least, be deeply fractured. I think we see this in both family and community relations in this country. Should a person be allowed to make choices about what the later looks like? Of course! But to legitimate that choice on a philosophy of autonomous individuals has horrible consequences.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that 'rom a Christian perspective, I would contend that we are not at all free to decide whether these intermediate goods are good or not' - God is the judge of what is good and what is not, so in the relationship between a person and God no complete autonomy of the person is admissible.
ReplyDeleteWhat I constantly guard against is the attitude that in relationship with other people, we are free to decide for others(!) what is good and what is not. From a Christian perspective, we are very seldom to make that determination for others, because God has given to other, just as much as to us, the freedom to choose right or wrong. I agree that instances where parents fail to live up to their obligations do infringe on the rights of other people (their children) and give us the right to coerce them into meeting their responsibility. But beyond these types of cases, I can scarcely see instances where limiting individual's freedom to choose is consistent with the Christian perspective.
I'm not sure history does not disprove your last statement - 'to legitimate [the choice about what community relations look like] on a philosophy of autonomous individuals has horrible consequences'. I am not as big of an expert on history as some others on this blog (David!) or political science (Rob!), but I see exactly the reverse - I see the most horrible consequences on record arising from cases where the individual was denied(!) the ability to make choices about what community relations look like. This might be a topic worth delineating further in a separate post.
I really don't think this is a case of either-or. I would strongly agree that the consequences of totalitarian governments in fascist and communist forms cannot be judged as anything less than horrific. So much of the wisdom in Mill's statement can be seen in the former Soviet bloc or in Communist China. Yet neither am I convinced that the current state of moral pollution and society-wide fragmentation in the West is not a horror to behold in many ways.
ReplyDeleteMy biggest concern is not with a system that leaves much, if not most, of the choice with responsible individuals within local face-to-face settings--I support that strongly. In fact that has to be the case for moral virtue to develop in persons. But such a system must be undergirded by a ethic and public philosophy that gives us more to work toward than negotiations between autonomous persons who are otherwise in no way indebted to each other. Democracy only works well if the people share certain values and prize certain virtues.
What I hope and pray for are societies that can find a balance of individualism set within shared traditions and practices. Hah! I suspect you are right that this is evolving into another post. . .