John Stuart Mill was one of the most influential philosophers in Western thought and in the subsequent development of Psychology. In addition to being one of the leaders of the last phase of the Enlightenment, many of his ethical and political approaches served to shape the purposes of behavioral science and ideas about the idea of the mind.
Below we will give a summarized review of John Stuart Mill’s utilitarian theory and his thought
This philosopher was born in London in 1806. His father, James Mill, was one of the friends of the philosopher Jeremy Bentham, and soon embarked his son on a tough and demanding education program to turn him into an intellectual. After leaving university due to a collapse, he dedicated himself to working for the East India Company, and also to writing.
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 way of 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 later.
From 1865 to 1868, John Stuart Mill He was a parliamentarian in London and from this position his philosophy gained even more visibility.
The main aspects of John Stuart Mill’s thought are the following.
1. The greatest good for the greatest number of people
Stuart Mill was greatly 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 was equivalent to the useful.
John Stuart Mill did not reach the extremes of Bentham, but he did place the idea of what is useful in a high place in his philosophical system. When it comes to establishing what is morally correct, then, he established that the greatest good for the greatest number of people must be pursued.
2. The idea of freedom
In order to achieve the previous objective, people must have the freedom to establish what makes them happy and 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 what is good.
3. The limits of freedom
To ensure that people’s personal happiness-seeking projects do not overlap with each other, causing unfair harm, it is important avoid that which 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 person loses. For this, John Stuart Mill places a clear limit that should not be crossed by imposed wills: the body itself Something undoubtedly bad is that which involves an unwanted interference in a body or its health.
Thus, Stuart Mill establishes the idea that each person is sovereign over his or her own body and mind. However, the body is not the only thing that creates a limit that cannot be crossed, but rather the minimum, the safe thing in all cases, regardless of the context. There is another moral boundary: 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 the philosophy of mind, and one that John Stuart Mill defended despite not using this word.
Basically, considering that each person is sovereign over their body and mind is a way of establishing a conceptual framework in which the starting point is always the individual, something that is related to what lies beyond its properties, taking over. of it or negotiating, winning or losing, but not changing.
This idea is totally opposed, for example, to the behaviorist way of understanding human beings. Behaviorists, especially since BF Skinner’s contributions 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 outside of 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 their conception of the human being is dualistic, and that is why many psychologists, and behaviorists especially, oppose them.
