Mill holds 'society'to be omnipotent over the young.It has no right to complain of the characters which it has itself concurred in producing.lf this be so,can it be indifferent to morality?Indeed,Mill distinguishes himself from others of his school precisely by emphasising the educational efficiency of the state.Institutions,according to him,are the tools by which the human will --the will of the sovereign --moulds the character of the race.Mill's whole aim in economic questions is to encourage prudence,self-reliance,and energy.He wishes the state to interfere to strengthen and enlighten;and to promote an equality of property which will raise the standard of life and discourage wasteful luxury.What is this but to stimulate certain moral creeds and to discourage certain 'experiments in living'?
How can so powerful an agency affect character without affecting morals --self-regarding or extra-regarding?The difficulty comes out curiously in his last chapter.He has recourse to a dexterous casuistry to justify measures which have an obvious moral significance.Are we to legislate with a view to diminishing drunkenness?No:but we may put drunkards under special restrictions when they have once been led to violence.We should not tax stimulants simply in order to suppress drunkenness;but,as we have to tax in any case,we may so arrange taxation as to discourage the consumption of injurious commodities.May we suppress gambling or fornication?No:but we may perhaps see our way to suppressing public gambling-houses or brothels,because we may forbid solicitations to that which we think evil,though we are not so clear of the evil as to suppress the conduct itself.
We may enforce universal education,though he makes the condition that the state is only to pay for the children of the poor,not to provide the schools.And,once more,we are not forbidden by his principle to legislate against imprudent marriages;for the marriage clearly affects the offspring,and,moreover,affects all labourers in an over-populated country.Yet,what interference with private conduct could be more stringent or more directly affect morality?
A principle requiring such delicate handling is not well suited to guide practical legislation.This timid admission of moral considerations by a back-door is the more curious because Mill not only wishes to have a moral influence,but has the special merit,in economical and in purely political questions,of steadily and constantly insisting upon their moral aspect.He holds,and is justified in holding,that the ultimate end of the state should be to encourage energy,culture,and a strong sense of responsibility.It is true that,though he exaggerates the influence of institutions,he insists chiefly upon the negative side,upon that kind of 'education'which consists in leaving a man to teach himself.Yet his political theory implies a wider educational influence.Every citizen is to have a share both in the legislative and administrative functions of the government.
Such an education must have a strong influence upon the moral characteristics.It may promote or discourage one morality or another,but it cannot be indifferent.And this impresses itself upon Mill himself.The principles of 'contradiction'in speculation and of 'antagonism'in politics;the doctrines that each man is to form his own opinions and regulate his own life,imply a society of approximately equal and,as far as possible,independent units.This,if it means 'liberty,'also means a most effective 'educational'process.One lesson taught may be that 'any one man is as good as any other.'Mill sees this clearly,and declares that this 'false creed'is held in America and 'nearly connected'with some American defects.(58)He persuades himself that it may be remedied by Hare's scheme,and by devices for giving more votes to educated'persons.One can only reply,sancta simplicitas!In fact,the 'educational'influence which implies levelling and equalising is not less effective than that which maintains ranks or a traditional order.It only acts in a different direction.Here,once more,Mill's argument seems to recoil upon his own position.When,in the Liberty,he sums up the influences hostile to individuality,including all the social and intellectual movements of the day,he is describing the forces which will drive his political machinery.The political changes which are to break up the old structure,to make society an aggregate of units approximately equal in wealth and power,will inevitably facilitate the deeper and wider influences of the social changes.If,in fact,'individuality'in a good sense is being crushed by the whole democratic movement --where democracy means the whole social change --it will certainly not be protected by the political changes to be made in the name of liberty.Each man is to have his own little sphere;but each man will be so infinitesimal a power that he will be more than ever moulded by the average opinions.In the Liberty (59)Mill puts his whole hope in the possibility that the 'intelligent part of the public'may be led to feel the force of his argument.To believe that a tendency fostered by every social change can be checked by the judicious reasoning of Utilitarian theorists,implies a touching faith in the power of philosophy.
Mill's doctrines,I believe,aim at most important truths.
'Energy'is,let us agree,a cardinal virtue and essential condition of progress.It requires,undoubtedly,a sphere of individual *******.Without *******,a man is a tool --transmitting force mechanically,not himself co-operating intelligently or originating spontaneously.Every citizen should be encouraged to be an active as well as a passive instrument.
