The utilitarian theory of John Stuart Mill

John Stuart Mill was one of the most influential philosophers in Western thought and in the later development of Psychology. In addition to being one of the referents of the last phase of the Enlightenment, many of his ethical approaches and Politicians served to shape the purposes of behavioral science and ideas about the idea of ​​behavior. mind of him.

Next we will give a summary review of the utilitarian theory of John Stuart Mill and his thought.

• Related article. "Utilitarianism: a philosophy centered on happiness"

Who was John Stuart Mill?

This philosopher was born in London in 1806. His father, James Mill, was a friend of the philosopher Jeremy Bentham, and he soon embarked his son on a tough and demanding program of education to make him an intellectual. After leaving the university because of a collapse, he dedicated himself to work in the East India Company, and also to write.

In 1931 He began a friendship with Harriet Taylor, whom he would marry 20 years later. Harriet was a fighter for women's rights and her influence was clearly reflected in the thinking of John Stuart Mill, who as a defender of the Enlightenment believed in the principle of equality and his philosophy on the subject, therefore, it would be comparable to the liberal feminism that developed more late.

From 1865 to 1868, John Stuart Mill he was a parliamentarian in London, and from this position his philosophy gained even more visibility.

• You may be interested: "How are Psychology and Philosophy alike?"

John Stuart Mill's theory

The main aspects of John Stuart Mill's thinking are as follows.

1. The greatest good for the greatest number of people

Stuart Mill was heavily influenced by Jeremy Bentham, a good friend of his family. If Plato believed that the good was the truth, Bentham was a radical utilitarian, and he believed that the idea of ​​the good equaled the useful.

John Stuart Mill did not go to Bentham's extremesBut it did put the idea of ​​usefulness high in his philosophical system. When establishing what is morally correct, then, he established that the greatest good must be pursued for the greatest number of people.

2. The idea of ​​freedom

In order to achieve the above objective, people must have the freedom to establish what makes them happy and he allows them to live well. Only in this way is it possible to create a moral system without there being a totalizing and imposed idea (and therefore contrary to the principles of the Enlightenment) of the good.

3. The limits of freedom

To ensure that people's personal happiness-seeking projects do not overlap each other causing unjust harm, it is important avoid what directly harms the rest.

4. The sovereign subject

Now, it is not easy to distinguish between a situation that benefits one person and one in which another loses. To do this, John Stuart Mill places a clear limit that must not be crossed by imposed wills: the body itself. Something undoubtedly bad is that which supposes an unwanted interference in a body or its health.

Thus, Stuart Mill establishes the idea that each person is sovereign of his own body and mind. However, the body is not the only thing that creates a limit that cannot be crossed, but the minimum, the safe thing in all cases, regardless of the context. There is another moral frontier: the one posed by private property. This is considered an extension of the sovereign subject itself., like the body.

5. Fixism

Fixism is the idea that beings remain isolated from the context. It is a concept widely used in psychology and philosophy of mind, and one that John Stuart Mill defended despite not using this word.

Basically, the fact of considering that each person is sovereign over his body and mind is a way of establishing a conceptual framework in which the point of The starting point is always the individual, something that is related to what is beyond their properties, owning it or negotiating, winning or losing, but not Changing.

This idea is totally opposed, for example, with the behaviorist way of understanding the human being. The behaviorists, especially since the contributions of B. F. Skinner to this field, they believe that each person is the result of transactions between stimuli (what they perceive) and responses (what they do). In other words, they do not exist in a way that is alien to the context.

In conclusion

Western countries of contemporary times. It starts from an individualistic conception of the human being and establishes that, by default, nothing is bad if it does not flagrantly harm someone. However, ontologically his conception of the human being is dualist, and that is why many psychologists, and behaviorists especially, oppose them.