John Stuart Mill has not been considered as a useful contributor to debates about either the situation of individuals in social groups or to the resolution of conflicts between diverse social groups. However, his attempt to combine the role of the practical reformer with the theory of social science which requires him to situate the cultural social group, and consider both the prospects and difficulties that the diversity of group presents. By examining the role of of circumstances and customs in Mill’s philosophy, his position on the just treatment of diverse groups such as gay couples emerges. Mill attempts to develop institutional arrangements that prevent any group from becoming dominant and which symbolize the importance of rationality.
Mill found that it was essential to change his mentor’s hedonism so that utilitarianism will incorporate recognition of superior pleasures and a belief in human growth (Don 27). Not all activities are equally desirable or worthwhile for example gay marriage. However, according to Mill these activities that result in cultivating the qualitatively higher pleasures are worthwhile than activities involving the qualitatively lower pleasures. Meanwhile, a larger amount of a lower pleasure might not be more valuable than a smaller amount of a higher one. Responding to the question if which pleasures such as gay marriages could be more valuable or superior. Mill argues that people who are competent acquitted with the range of choices could prefer those pleasures which employ the higher faculties.
Thus, he argues that the democratic society automatically failed to protect individual and minority liberties and there was no assurance that the right of the minority could be tolerated. Mill was concerned with an act of tolerance and could not understand which part of government has the right to legislate and protect the minority in the society. For instance, Mill argues that if sexism such as gay marriage exists in society, although the government has banned it, we have to find ways to make sure that these groups of people who have been discriminated against do not continue to be treated that way. For the recent legislation in Texas that prevent the marriage of the gay couples, Mill argues that it is not enough to simply base ethics on the greatest good for the greatest number. He argues that sometimes these groups of people who society do not have tolerance for would continually be treated poorly. These people may always fall into the group of individuals that are considered the greatest number.
According to Mill we should consider the people who are harmed when pleasure is increased. Thus, he supports his argument with a set of principles concerning harm which covers the harm of intolerance and of defining pleasure in a manner that are not supported by majority rule. Gary 135). Based on the harm principle, Mill argues that the only legitimate justification for social coercion is to stop someone from doing harm to others. This means the government should interfere with someone’s decision about his or her pleasure and their following actions if this decision would cause harm to others. Thus, Mill understand that any action at all may harm another be it the harm that society ought to prevent its members against or that society ought to tolerate.
In the principle where an individual ought to be subject to social coercion only to prevent the violation of assignable obligation to any other people, Mill argues that society ought to protect society against those that violate society’s right. Thus, Mill argues we should give people freedom to decide what they think increases their pleasure without harming anyone else because the democracy that protect liberty is the optimal soil for social progress and the quest of a person’s happiness.
Works Cited
Don, Habibi. “J.S. Mill's Revisionist Utilitarianism.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 1998: Vol. 6, Issue 1, p26-89.
Gary, Williams. “Mill's Principle Of Liberty.” Political Studies, 2000: Vol. 24, Issue 2, p132- 140.
