TEST SERIES QUESTIONS ON BENTHAM, MILL AND ROUSSEAU

1. Mill's reluctance of democracy is his genuine concern for democracy.

Comment.
Mill is highly appreciative of the merits of the democracy; he never opposed democracy as a
political system but warned that all societies are not fit for democracy. In context of
democracy in colonies, he was reluctant in the sense that democracy can be dangerous if
people are not fit for the democratic way of life. His major concerns with democracy in
colonial and developing societies are:

He is apprehensive of possible tyrannical nature of majority rule and its safeguarding

only its own interests.

Collective mediocrity, general ignorance and incapacity of the members of the

governing body will result in poor & mediocre governance.

There is too much diffusion of power in democracy. Some powers are wielded in the
parliament, others by cabinet, and others by ministers and finally others by civil
servants. He is afraid that democratic government generally cannot reach a quick
decision, nor can it implement it properly,

The principle everyone to count for one and nobody to count for more than one is a
principle of false democracy. It ignores that men are not gifted by nature with equal
intelligence, virtue and health. In the political system, the men of more intelligence
should be given more weightage than less intelligent men.

Even if the ruling power is apparently exercised by the numerical majority, the real
power can be exercised by the selected few for the promotion of the vested interests of
the community in supersession of the community as a whole.

Wayper in context of Mill correctly points that No one has been less blind to the faults of
democracy. No one has insisted more vigorously that it is not suitable for all the peoples. But
no one has been more convinced that when it is possible, it is the best of all governments.
2. Examine Rousseau's critique of civil society.
Rousseau in his second essay called the discourse describes how mans nature got twisted
and corrupted with the emergence of civil society, which in turn was necessitated by the rise
of the institution of private property and the need to defend it by institutionalising social
inequality through law. According to him, the origin of civil society and laws destroyed
natural liberty for ever and subjected the human race to labour, servitude and wretchedness.
Rousseau here is not portraying this transition from state of nature to civil society as a
historical event but from a hypothetical and moral angle. Also this critique of civil society
forms the basis of emergence of his concept of social contract since the man cannot go back
to the state of nature and a new order has to be created where the man could realise his true
nature.
3. Over himself, over his own body and mind individual is sovereign (Mill).
Comment.
Mills definition of liberty states that it is the sovereignty of the individual over himself. No
interference with the liberty of action is justified except to prevent him from harming others.
Mill divided all actions into two categories Self Regarding and other regarding actions.

Self-regarding actions are those which concern only the individual performing them. The
actions which affect others are the other regarding actions. He concludes that there should be
no interference with the self-regarding actions, but only with such other regarding actions
which produce harm to others.
Mill wants to promote the development of men and women as he is convinced that all wise
and noble things must come from the individuals. Freedom is being left to oneself. To him, all
restraint, quo-restraint is an evil. Neither state nor society has the right to interfere in a
persons liberty unless the exercise of the liberty violates the legitimate interests of the
others.
4. Individualism and absolutism in Rousseau's political thinking. Comment.
Rousseaus political thought shows evidence of being both an individualist and an absolutist.
Alfred Cobban justifies the individualism in Rousseau on the following grounds:

His basic concern is individuals moral life.

For him, the state is not an end in itself for the individual and its purpose is to maintain
the freedom of the individual. The very existence of the state is created by the
individuals and it exists for them and not them for it.

His theory starts with the individual and not with the state, and finally he also makes a
distinction between the state and government where the latter is just a subordinate
agency of the state which is created to carry out the will of the political community.

But at the same time Vaughan argues that Rousseau is an absolutist for the following reasons:

In his theory , the individual can be forced to accept the general will and there is no
place for the personal will of the individual which he describes as actual will , a selfish
desire .

His organic view of the state. Just as all organs of the human mind have to work at the
command of the mind, Wayper writes that men have to work at the command of the
state or the general will. Though the individual is an integral part of the community, but
he is forced to surrender his individuality.

To summarize, Rousseau cannot be categorized in any of the two compartments and each of
the concepts will acquire a fuller meaning if he is considered a moralist whose object was to
achieve a reconciliation between the individual and the state.

5. The contracts creates moral liberty, which alone renders a man master of
himself (Rousseau)
For a proper appreciation of the argument given above it is necessary to keep in mind the way
in which Rousseau formulated his problem. It arose out of the utter incompatibility between
the true freedom which is demanded by the inner nature of man and the externally imposed
authority of the state which was a brute fact in France during that period. France was then
governed by men and not by laws; her people were subject to the authority of despotic
masters who issued commands; they had no liberty. Rousseau, on the other hand, was
convinced that in a truly organized society there would be no despots and no commands; all
men would be genuinely free. The question thus naturally arose whether it was possible to

devise a form of political organization which, while affording to every citizen complete security
and protection, would also give him the greatest amount of freedom. This is the most
fundamental problem of political science; this is the problem of the relation between the State
and the individual; the problem of reconciling individual liberty with the authority of the state,
the problem of determining what makes government lawful and obedience to it a duty.
Rousseau believed that he had found the key to the solution of this difficult problem in the
idea of a social pact.
Only a society based on social contract, as Rousseau defines the term, is in a position to
provide to its members moral liberty which proceeds from submission to the law of reason, as
well as security and protection which result from civil law and order. A society resting on force
can give only the second but not the first. It cannot provide freedom; for in it there can be no
sense of moral obligation on the part of an individual to obey its authority; it gives power but
no right. When an individual yields to force, he yields not because he ought but because he
must. Since force can never create a right, a society based on it would be a wrong society; it
cannot be the right society of Rousseaus imagination which alone can lead us towards the
goal of perfectibility.
According to Rousseau, it is equally futile to rest society on the will of God. He summarily
rejects the Divine Origin Theory by wittily remarking that every disease comes from God too,
but that does not prevent us from calling in a physician.
Rousseau saw that the only way to render the authority of the state lawful and make
obedience to it a duty is to base it on agreement among its members. Since no man has any
natural authority over his fellow men, and since force is not the source of right, conventions
remain as the basis of all lawful authority among men. Rousseau could come to this
conclusion very easily because the Social Contract Theory formed an important part of the
intellectual climate of that time; it had been familiarized and popularized by thinkers like
Hobbes and Locke. But he does not make it basis of the rights and liberties of individuals as
against the government. He does not rest constitutional government on it as was done by
Locke. In the hands of Rousseau the Contract theory does not lead to the individualistic
conception of the state, for him the community is the chief moralizing agency and therefore
represents the highest moral value.

6. I am the peter who denied his master (mill)

Mill in his attempts to defend the theory of utilitarianism against criticisms levelled against his
mentor Bentham, proceeds to redefine many tenets of the original thought. After an analysis
of his efforts, it is realized that he has inadvertently changed the theory so much that it barely
constitutes any contribution by his predecessor Bentham, thereby justifying the statement I
am the peter who denied his master.
Some of the key points of difference between the two utilitarian philosophers are as follows:

Unlike Bentham, Mill believed that human being is not only self-centered but also
considers others welfare. As Bentham said, human being only pursued his own
interests and he has nothing to do with the welfare of other person whereas Mill
acknowledged self-sacrificing attribute of the humans. Mill said that it is better to
be a human being dissatisfied then a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied
than a fool satisfied.

According to mill there is a qualitative difference and there are multidimensional

ways of getting pleasure. There are preferences of pleasure. According to Bentham,

the ultimate goal of life is utility which is given out by pleasure. Mill endorsed the
view of Humboldt that the ultimate target of the human being is self-realization.

Mill also rejected the Benthams idea of Achievement of pleasure and avoidance of
pain. Mill considered good life better than pleasurable life. This way Mill introduced
moral aspects to Benthams utilitarianism. Unlike Bentham, who separated moral
life and materialistic life, for Mill, receiving pain was the part of the pleasure.

Bentham accepted only natural, political, religious and external things as the source
of pleasure and pain. But Mill accepted internal sources such as morality, faith as
source of pleasure and pain.

Bentham idea of morality is circumstantial and does not have pre-established rules
and regulations. According to Bentham, liberty is follower of utility. Bentham is ready
to leave liberty in order to get pleasure. Mill emphasized that pleasure is due to
liberty. Liberty is means of pleasure for Bentham. For Mill, liberty is end in itself.
Liberty cannot be utility. In fact utility could be means for liberty.

Bentham is Universalist. He did not consider historical context, custom, relativity or

conditions and circumstances. Mill believed that every reality has a context. Nothing
is absolute and universal. There could not be a universal truth.

According to Bentham, democracy is suitable for all countries but for Mill, suitability
of democracy depends upon the people, especially quality and character of the
people. This way Bentham justifies democracy because of nature of man, Mill
justifies democracy because of condition of man.

7. Bentham changed the character of British institutions more than any other
man in the nineteen century (Ebenstein)
The philosopher Jeremy Bentham is both the Father of Utilitarianism ("the greatest happiness
principle") and the Father of International Law. (Indeed, it was Bentham who coined the word
international and multicultural.) He was an English lawyer, economist and philosopher who
was born in London 15th February, 1748, and died there 6th June, 1832 He then studied law
at Lincolns Inn and his father hoped that he would become an eminent lawyer of the
establishment. However, his observations of the moral and intellectual defilement of the
courts as centers of lying, hypocrisy, greed, corruption and fraud, turned him from the
practice of law to philosophical enquiry where he found the offer of better values and methods
for security, justice and social progress. As medicine should relieve pain and make pleasure
possible, so, by analogy, Bentham believed that institutions and the legal system should be
structured to remove pain and produce pleasure.
Philosopher Jeremy Bentham received legacies from his parents that freed him from having to
earn a living and he chose to dedicate his life to offering a radical critique and reconstruction
of all English institutions: moral, religious, educational, political, economic and legal. For each,
his method was to make a critical analysis of the institution as it was and then to provide a
detailed structure for what it ought to be. His concept of the welfare state was truly utopian.
He designed what he called "Panopticon Hill Villages" as refuges for all with special social and
economic needs (whether the orphan or the widow, the unemployed, the aged, or the
mentally or physically disabled) where their needs would be met by employment exchanges,
special education and retraining centers, animal and plant breeding centers, music schools
and other methods for assistance and motivation. Concerned with the brutal treatment of

prisoners he became a pioneer in prison reform but his attempts to persuade his government
to respond came to nothing. Unfortunately the wide spread of his commitment meant that he
never completed works examining any areas of his concern except, perhaps, three volumes of
legal reform: The Rationale of Judicial Evidence (edited by John Stuart Mill in 1825) and the
two volumes Constitutional Code (c. 1830).
At the time of his death he was trying to complete further volumes of his Constitutional Code.
He began as a Conservative and ended as a Liberal, demanding equality and social justice.
Bentham provided the principle and draft legislation affecting laws and the constitutions of
the United States, Canada, and other countries on five continents, by which they included
such phrases as "the pursuit of happiness". He wrote an essay entitled, Anti-Senatica -- a plea
for the abolition of the U.S. Senate -- and sent it to the then current president of the United
States, Andrew Jackson. (It was unpublished until 1926.) He felt deeply about human suffering
and need, travelled far (although he later became somewhat of a recluse), read widely, and
enjoyed the friendship of able men of all classes. He helped to found University College,
London.
He followed in the steps of Socrates who was committed to dialogue, not confrontation, and to
human need beyond the nation/state of the city of Athens, and in the steps of David Hume
who saw himself as a citizen of the world with his friend, Adam Smith, the moral philosopher
who created an economic theory not for the wealth of his own country but for the wealth of
nations all nations and all the people of all the nations: no child anywhere to be left behind.
Because Benthams writings emphasized the pursuit of happiness and freedom (though based
on world responsibility) they became popular in the new republics of America and France.
Over the years he carried on correspondence with many leading figures in Europe and
America - indeed throughout five continents who were interested in his advice on a Code for
their laws.

Philosopher Jeremy Bentham's major contribution to International Law provided the legal
foundation for The League of Nations, the United Nations and the United Nations International
Court at The Hague, offering the framework by which nations today can - indeed must - go to
court not to war.

8. Rousseau, profounder of popular sovereignty finally emerged as totalitarian

thinker
There is a controversy between commentators of Rousseau as to whether he was an
absolutist or an individualist. There are two schools of thought about his theory. According to
Vaughn, his ideas lead straight to collectivism. According to Vaughn, Rousseau is a
determined foe of individualism a sworn foe not only of individualism, but also individuality.
As per Vaughn, his political theory eventuates in a communal despotism. Though Vaughn
admits he depicted himself as an individualist through his book Discourses, yet he has to be
assessed on the basis of his later work, called Social Contract, through which he seems to
portray himself as an outright collectivist. Wayper says that in his book Social Contract, he
propounded the Organic theory of state. Just as all the organs of the body work under the
dominant control of the mind, the constituents of the Society have to submit to the
indisputable command of the General Will. Going through Social Contract minutely, one can
come to no other conclusion except Rousseau was a collectivist, that he believed in the
supremacy of the state over the individual, and that he did not leave any scope for individual
defying the state. Even an out-and-out absolutist like Hobbes, gave individuals right to

contravene the state at certain junctures, like if the individuals life is at danger on account of
obedience to the orders of the state. Rousseau, the so-called democrat, and a staunch
advocate of popular government does not allow individuals even that right. Rousseau is of the
view that the individual does not have the realisation of his real good, as he is generally
dominated by the actual will representing his selfish interests. It is the society as a whole,
represented by the General Will, which realises what is good and what is bad for the
individuals. Hence, for their own interest and welfare, the individuals must live under the
suzerainty of the General Will.
But Professor Alfred Cobban, in his book Rousseau and the Modern State, holds a view that
is entirely antagonistic to that of Professor Vaughn. Cobban feels that Rousseau was a
downright individualist. He justifies his views on the following grounds:
1. The basic interest of Rousseau is the moral life of the individual. He was primarily a
moralist. He is mainly concerned with the moral life of an individual. His end is always the
individual and his liberty.
2. State is not an end in itself. Though the community has to play an essential part in the
moralisation and liberation of individuals; yet the state can never be higher than a means to
an end. His political thought starts with the individual. The end of the state is to
enthusiastically develop the moral personality of the individual. Though Cobban admittedly
says that there could not be any freedom for the individuals without the state, yet it can never
become an end in itself.
3. Rousseau seems to have deliberately chosen the medium of Social Contract and gives this
name to his masterpiece. It is the proof that individual comes before the state, which is
created by individuals and exists for them and not vice versa.
4. He begins with the individuals and not with the state. In all his books, first the individual is
described, along with the tendencies and weaknesses of the individuals. Then there is an
explanation of the methods as to how to improve those attributes and to remove the
weaknesses. Though the ultimate solution that he suggests is the merger of the personality of
the individual into that of the state, and yet, as per Rousseau, whatever social organism that
emerges from the merger, it only subsists for the moral development of the individual.
5. Rousseau tries to make a clear distinction between the state and the government. Unlike
Hobbes, who never made any such distinction, Rousseau clearly distinguishes state from the
Government. He says that the latter is only a subordinate agency of the former. And state is
created to carry out the general will of the political community.
In order to do complete justice to Rousseau, it would be improper to place him in either of the
two water-tight compartments of individualists or collectivists. His philosophy was allpervasive, and thus, with all due regard to both Vaughn and Cobban, their individual views
cannot be accepted in totality, or as standalone entities. He was neither an individualist nor a
collectivist. Yet, at the same time, he was both. The truth is that he was a moralist whose aim
was to effect a process of reconciliation between the individual and the state, in which each of
them may acquire a greater meaning.
9. What do you understand by mills statement of the oppressive effects of
social pressure to confirm. Discuss the arguments given by mill in defence of
individual freedom even In case of eccentric and out spoken false opinion. ?
(250 words, 20 marks)
Mills holds a very passionate view of freedom of thought and expression. His ideas have been
a source of inspiration for those concerned with civil liberties and individual freedom. In his

book on liberty Mill favoured freedom of action and speech against state and the pressure of
public opinion and tradition. He was of the view every individual whether right or wrong must
have right to express his/her opinion. He must not be denied of this right even it is against the
majoritarian view or accepted social norms. The above statement, The oppressive effects of
social pressure to confirm has been said in the same context.
According to Mill Tyranny of majority poses a threat to liberty. He argued that public opinion is
more dangerous than state and officials of the state. He argued that human being or citizens
can not dare to work against public opinion that blocks his intellect and finally eliminates the
power of thought. In the support of breech of speech and action, he said public opinion and
traditional wisdom is not the parameter of value and truth of speech. Therefore one should be
always allowed to speak even against the whole society. He further says that even If all
mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion,
mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power,
would be justified in silencing mankind.
While in case of actions he clearly distinguishes between self-regarding and other
regarding actions and allows states interference in other regarding actions, he takes a
different stand in terms of thought and expression. He says that while thought is without
exception self-regarding, expression of ones thoughts clearly has consequences for other
people. However, freedom of expression being almost of as much importance as the liberty of
thought itself and resting in great part on the same reasons it is practically inseparable from
freedom of thought. And so Mill argues for both together. Thus according to him the state may
only interfere with people holding and expressing their views if those views cause harm to
others and even then, it should only interfere if doing so would be more beneficial than not
doing so. So there should be absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects,
practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological, however immoral the opinion or
sentiment may seem. Mill gives number of arguments in defence of individual freedom even
in case of eccentric and outspoken false opinion:-

Firstly if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can
certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. He further says
that the only reason we have to think that our belief is true is that no one has shown it
is false, although there is every opportunity to make the argument. We cannot be sure
that our belief is true if we prevent opposing beliefs from being expressed and
discussed. He gives the examples of Socrates and Jesus who were put to death by the
people who assumed themselves to be infallible.

Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does,
contain a portion of truth; and since the general or public opinion on any subject is
rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the
reminder of truth has any chance of being supplied.

Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is
suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of
those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or
feeling of its rational grounds.

Fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled,
and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a
mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and
preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal

experience. He says that we shouldnt silence even false opinions because they help us
understand WHY we believe what we believe, because we want our views to be living
truths not dead dogmas.

He further links it to his action argument and says that if we learn the grounds of our
opinions, then we are more likely to act on them.

Lastly according to Mill Self Realisation should be the objective of every individual
and it is only through debate and discussions that a person could understand the truth
about others but about himself also. He says that it is important to make sure even the
average person can achieve its true mental potential, enrich and expand his personality
because by only this a society can truly progress.

Hence it is truly said that Mill was one of the greatest prophet of liberty in general and
freedom of thought and expression in particular.

PREVIOUS YEARS UPSC QUESTIONS ON BENTHAM,

MILL AND ROUSSEAU

Comment : The worth of a State, in the long run , is the worth of the individuals
composing it (J.S. Mill)
Rousseaus theory of Social Contract is Hobbess Leviathan with its head
chopped off. Discuss.
Discuss how early radicalism was modified by John Stuart Mill

Comment: I give the name to every state that is governed by laws, no matter
what the form of its administration. (Rousseau)
Comment: As soon as a nation appoints representatives, it is no longer free, it
no longer exists. (Rousseau).
Comment: Since liberty is a fruit that does not grow in all climates, it cannot be
enjoyed by all people alike. (Rousseau)
Comment: Obedience to mere impulse of appetite is slavery. (Rousseau).
Comment: Punishment should be preventive and corrective rather than
retaliatory. (Bentham)
Comment: Mill was the prophet of an empty liberty and an abstract individual.
Critically examine: In the first place, it is mostly considered unjust to deprive
anyone of his personal liberty, his property or any other thing which belongs to
him by law. (J.S. Mill)
All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility. (J.S. Mill)