ASSIGNMENT No.

1
Course: Social Theory II (4670) Semester: Autumn,2022
Student NAME: Sadia Zafar (20PMN02950) MSc
Pak Study

Q.1 Critically analyze Montesquieu’s view on religion. Why had be

underplayed the role of religion in the political domain of that time?
Why had be considered different religions suitable for different
regions? 

Answer:
Religious tolerance is described as the willingness to respect moralvalues,
beliefs, and traditions that differ from one's own. Religious tolerance and
reason were synonymous in Montesquieu's view. Since no religious
ideology can be justified solely by justification, all religious beliefs should
be treated fairly

Montesquieu, like other members of the French Enlightenment, was most

acquainted with France's hypocritical Catholic church. Montesquieu shared
the French Enlightenment's antipathy against all faith.

Montesquieu rejected all religious beliefs as similarly false based on his

logical worldview. Montesquieu believed that it was immoral for one
religious view to have some advantage over another. As a result, he felt
that all religions should accept one another. The government should enact
legislation to enforce this tolerance.

Montesquieu judges a religion in the sense of a given state, rather than

favoring or opposing religious toleration in general. He has mixed feelings
about a particular religion (for example, Christianity). He believes that
there are times when a state can use nonviolent means to marginalize,
weaken, or exclude a religion from a society. As a result, he is a supporter
of so-called "selective religious bigotry."

Montesquieu's conclusions about the consequences of religion and how the

 state can react to them are based on a thorough examination of how a
specific religion integrates into a culture.
Both religion and politics have one common goal: that is to acquire political
power and use it to fulfill their aims. However, to achieve this object, their
methods are different. Religion mobilizes religious sensibilities of people in
order to get their support to capture power; while politics uses intrigue,
diplomacy, and makes attempt to win public opinion either democratically, if
the system allows it, or usurps power with the help of army, if the society is
under-developed and backward.

Therefore, in power struggle, both politics and religion make attempts to

undermine each other. If religion holds political authority, its ambition is to
exploit it to fulfill a divine mission. It claims that it derives authority from
divinity and therefore its mission is holy, motivated to reform society under the
spiritual guidance. Politics, on the contrary, bereft of any value, directs its
policy on the needs and requirements of society whereupon, it obliges to
change laws and system of government accordingly. This is a basic
difference between two approaches of religion and politics:

 Religion determines its authority on divine laws which could not be

changed with human intervention;

 While in pragmatic political approach society should move ahead, change

and adjust itself with the new arising challenges of time.

In its secular approach man is responsible to determine his destiny. He is not

under the control of divinity to remain submissive and inactive. On the contrary,
he is supposed to initiate and plan to build a society according to his vision.

There are three models in history related to religion and politics.

 In one when religion and politics both unite with each other in an attempt
to monopolize political power. We call it integration and sharing model.

 In the second model, politic, after subduing and overpowering religion,

uses it for its interests. In this model religion plays subservient role to
politics.
  In the third model both come into conflict with each other that
subsequently lead their separation. In this model they appear as rivals and
compete to struggle for domination.

The study of beginning and spread of any religion shows that every religion
is started in particular space and time; therefore, main focus of its teachings
is the solution of existing problems. However, with the change of time there are
new challenges and a religion has to respond them for its survival. In this
process, it has to adjust its teachings according to changes. With the passage of
time, a stage comes when a religion fails to respond challenges of its time and
finds hardly any space to adjust according to new environments. For example,
in case of Islam, it took nearly two and a half centuries to complete its
orthodoxy. Once the process was complete, it became in possible for orthodoxy
to give any place to new ideas and new thinking. It was believed that any
change in the structure would weaken its base. On this plea it persists to retain
its old structure without any addition.

At this stage there remain three options for any religion:

 1. Avoid and disapprove any change in its structure. If any attempt is

made to reinterpret its teachings, such attempts either is crushed
politically or with the help of religious injunctions (fatawa in case of
Islam). Those who claim to reconstruct religious thoughts; they should be
condemned as enemies of religion and believers should be warned to
boycott them and not listen to their views.

 2. In the second option, religion has a choice to adapt itself according

to the needs of time and accept new interpretation relating to its teachings
and accommodating modernity.

 3. In the third option, if religion fails to respond to the challenges and

feels insecure, it withdraws from the active life and decides not to
entangle in worldly affairs. It confines its activities to spirituality.

The helplessness of religion is obvious in the present circumstances in which

scientific and technological inventions are rapidly changing the society and its
character making it more complex and mechanical. Especially, with the
extension of knowledge, politics, economics, sciences, technology and other
branches of knowledge assume a separate entity that could be specialized and
handled by professionals. Ulema or religious scholars are not in a position to
understand intricacies of these professions and adjust them with religious
teachings. This is the reason why in some societies religion is separated from
politics and economics and it no more enjoys the domination over the society,
which it did in the medieval period.

The characteristic of three reactions may be defined as aggressive,

compromising, and separatist respectively.

There are groups of people in every society who want change in their
practical life but at the same time they desire not to abandon
religion. These people become supporters of new interpretation of religion that
suits their way of life. It causes emergence of new sects. Therefore, we find that
in every religion, there are new sects, which fulfill the demands of a group of
people within a span of time and then disappear in oblivion of history.
However, some sects persist and survive. For example, in the Christianity, when
bourgeoisie wanted religious sanction of interest, Calvin (d.1594) a religious
reformer, allowed it on the basis of religion. It removed business hurdles and
the merchant and industrial classes flourished. R.H. Tawney, in his classical
book ‘Religion and Rise of Capitalism’ rightly says, « Calvin did for the
bourgeoisie of the sixteenth century what Marx did for the proletariat of the
nineteenth…"

 Religion is a collection of beliefs that people have about some really big
questions, like how did the world come to be, how should people behave, what
happens to us after we die? Those are big questions. Those are questions that
just about everybody on the planet wants to know and they are hard--if not
impossible--to answer on our own. People have always tried and sometimes
they’ve come up with answers and when those answers have caught on a
religion is born.

“People have different religions for the same reasons that people have different
opinions and different tastes, because they were raised in different ways and in
different places and in different families and at different times, and with
different brains. All of these things have a different impact on what we believe
to be true about the world.

“Also, religion isn’t just about beliefs. It isn’t just about god, or gods or heaven
or angels. It’s about friendship and community. If you think about your school
and all of the things that make it great and all of the things that make you feel
like you belong there, it’s not just what the teachers are teaching, it’s the
activities and the people and the feelings. That’s how it is with religion. Some
people love their religion because it feels comfortable. It feels like home.

“A big thing for kids is 'why can’t everyone agree?' That would be much
simpler and easier, but when your parents have raised you to believe that certain
answers are truth and that’s the way that makes the most sense to you and that’s
the way that makes you feel good, it’s very hard to change your mind and most
people don’t want to.

“It’s quite fine actually that people believe different things. I think that it can be
a good thing. I think the better goal, if we have a goal, is to be understanding
that it’s not what people believe, but what they do in life that matters.”

Q.2 Why had Mill thought that freedom was no less at risk from a newly
empowered many (majority) than from an absolute monarch? Elaborate
this statement by focusing on Mill’s views about freedom of thought and
speech.

Mill has already outlined the principle which he wishes to defend, the harm
principle. In the chapter entitled “Of The Liberty of Thought and Discussion,”
Mill argues in favour of freedom of speech in the vast majority of situations,
barring a few key exception such as when an individual incites immediate
violence. Mill deals with three cases of free speech: one in which the suppressed
opinion is true, one in which it is partly true, and, lastly, one in which it is
wholly false.

Mill explains that “mankind can hardly be too often reminded, that there was
once a man named Socrates.” The ancient philosopher Socrates, famous for his
Socratic method argument, was put to death by an Athenian jury on charges of
impiety and corrupting the youth. Similar to Socrates, Jesus Christ was also
persecuted for his beliefs, which in Mill’s day were considered the moral
backbone of English society. No person no matter how intelligent is wholly
infallible and, for Mill, “All silencing of discussion is an assumption of
infallibility.” Therefore, no person has the right to silence others. We should all
be keenly aware of our fallibility. Even if the vast majority of people in any
given society agree on some issues, it does not justify silencing dissenters.
Mill passionately explains 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.” Mill laments that so many people
have fallen into what he calls the “pleasant falsehood” of believing that “truth
triumphs over persecution.” Truth does not inherently triumph over falsehood.
The annals of history repeat this lesson constantly, which is why we should
always be hesitant to suppress dissenting or differing views, even on the most
fundamental questions of life.

What about an opinion which is neither wholly true nor wholly false? Mill was
a keen advocate of progress. He rightly believed that the era in which he lived
was marked by unprecedented material and moral progress. But Mill did not
believe that progress consists of false beliefs being replaced with true beliefs.
Instead, he viewed improvement as a cyclical process in which different
elements of truth rise and fall. In time, the rigorous challenging of mixed
doctrines would allow future thinkers to separate the true parts from the false
parts of any given ideology.

But what about wholly false opinions? In modern terms, why should flat
earthers, holocaust deniers, and climate change deniers be allowed to express
their opinions? For Mill, “however true [the received opinion] may be, if it is
not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead
dogma,not a living truth.” Mill makes a distinction between what he calls true
belief and knowledge. True belief is holding correct beliefs; however,
knowledge is holding beliefs because they are justified through rational
argumentation.

If we simply hold onto our beliefs without passionately defending them, they
will hold progressively less sway in our mind as they decay into a dead dogma.
False beliefs provide us with the opportunity to defend our most cherished
beliefs, making sure that they remain a living truth rather than dead dogma. By
continually challenging our beliefs, we strengthen them further. Our beliefs are
like muscles. If we do not make use of them they will weaken; by consistently
defending our opinions, we bolster them against falsities that would usurp their
position in our minds.

Note that Mill does not base his arguments for free speech on universal or
natural rights. Like both his father and Jeremy Benthem, Mill was a utilitarian,
which is the doctrine that actions are right or ethical when they promote the
maximum happiness for the majority of people. Simply put, the greatest
happiness for the greatest number. Utilitarianism can, at times, have a shaky
relationship with the concept of natural or innate rights.

The father of Utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham famously described natural rights

as “nonsense on stilts.” It is essential to understand that Mill believes that
humans are “progressive beings.” He explains that “the source of everything
respectable in man either as an intellectual or as a moral being” is that we are
“capable of rectifying…mistakes, by discussion and experience.” Thus those
who censor opinions commit “a peculiar evil” by “robbing the human race” of
the path to truth. While Mill’s case for free speech is not built upon a foundation
of natural rights, it is based upon the proposition that free and unhindered
discussion corrects our errors and does so to the long term benefit of humanity.
This allows us not only to improve our own lives but those of our future
descendants who will also benefit from our discoveries.

INDIVIDUALITY

Mill argues that in the vast majority of cases we are afforded absolute liberty of
thought and expression. But thought and expression do not compose the entirety
of life. We also need to make choices and interact with others. In the chapter
entitled Of Individuality, as one of the elements of well-being, Mill makes
a case for the positive value of individuality.

Mill believes that every person has their own personal preferences and tastes in
all aspects of life. Mill explains that “human nature is not a machine to be built
after a model, and set to do exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree, which
requires to grow and develop itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the
inward forces which make it a living thing.” Since there is no one masterplan or
method that guarantees a fully flourishing life, Mill believes that there must be
“experiments of living.”

Mill despised and feared conformity. He deeply feared a future in which people
lived their life based upon nothing but custom and habit. He explains,“The
despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human
advancement.” Mill’s opposition to custom is nuanced.

He is not a libertine who supports eccentricity for its own sake. Instead, he
argues that when people act upon custom alone, they do not make a decision,
they simply follow what has already been done without thought. Our perception
and judgement must be fine-tuned, and this can only be achieved by exercising
our choice. Therefore, Mill explains that “he who does anything because it is
the custom makes no choice. He gains no practice either in discerning or
desiring what is best.”

But as before with freedom of speech, Mill does not base his arguments in the
inherent value of choice or individuality. He believes allowing for individuality
and choice creates an industrious and creative environment in which progress is
unimpeded. As he explains, “Genius can only breathe freely in an atmosphere of
freedom.” Mill’s arguments for individuality also have a personal tinge to them.

He had felt firsthand the judgmentalism of Victorian England. At the age of 17,
he had been arrested for distributing information on birth control. In his adult
life, he was looked at with scorn for his relationship with Harriet Taylor. And
throughout his life he had to hide his atheist beliefs fearing ridicule from society
at large.

LIMITS OF AUTHORITY

“Of The Limits to the authority of society over the individual,” Mill discusses
when state-sanctioned coercion is legitimate. The state provides a degree of
security and stability. Therefore Mill concludes we have reciprocal obligations
to the state and society at large such as respecting others rights and paying our
fair share in taxes to uphold justice. But the relationship between the individual
and the state is not a one-way street; in return for their cooperation and services,
the state ought to acknowledge certain limits which it ought not cross as
a general rule.

According to Mill, legal coercion is society’s most profound disapproval of

specifically egregious actions. It is not to be used lightly; it must only be used to
prevent the most egregious and apparent harms. Mill explains that not all
harmful or immoral activity ought to be punished by legal coercion.

He also distinguishes between natural and artificial punishments. Artificial

punishments are acts of legal coercion while natural punishments consist of the
unfavorable social opprobrium of certain conduct. For example, if a person is
drunk during the day at home, we ought not to bring the weight of the state
upon him but we can voice our disapproval and even disassociate with this
person.
There are two spheres of action for Mill: self-regarding and other-regarding.
One affects only the agent while the other affects the agent and other people. In
the realm of self-regarding acts, Mill believes that “there should be perfect
freedom” from coercion. We may be able to attempt to convince others that
their self-regarding conduct is harmful or unwise by offering “considerations to
aid his judgment [and] exhortations to strengthen his will.” But ultimately, the
individual is the final judge. To this end Mill is wholly opposed to paternalism.

However, any other-regarding action may be subject to the laws and regulations
of society. For example, drinking alcohol and selling alcohol are wholly
different endeavours. For Mill, society has a legitimate interest in regulating
trade to assure there is no foul play or dishonesty in marketing. But these
regulations may never result in an outright ban. If he were alive today, Mill
would likely approve of health warnings being placed on cigarette packs, but
would never advocate for an outright prohibition on cigarettes.

Q.3 To what extent Montesquieu succeeded in explaining human

laws and social institutions as realistically as the actual life is? Elaborate
your point of view with cogent arguments.

Baron de la Brede et de Montesquieu (1689-1755), made original contributions

to social and political theory. He was viewed by Comte and Durkheim as the
most important precursor of sociology; by Ernst Cassirer and Franz Neumann as
the inventor of ideal-type analysis; by Sir Frederick Pollock as the “father of
modern historical research” and of a “comparative theory of politics and law
based on wide observation of ... actual systems”; by Friedrich Meinecke as one
of the founders of Historismus (historicism or historism) with its relativism,
holism, and emphasis on the positive value of the irrational and the customary;
and by Hegel, who did not find it easy to praise his predecessors, as the first to
explain law and political institutions by reference to characteristics of the social
system in which they function Now that political sociology has become a
recognized discipline, Montesquieu has also been given pride of place as its first
modern. Nor is there much question that Montesquieu’s concept of the general
spirit of a society anticipated modern cultural anthropology.

Thus, Montesquieu’s position as social theorist would seem to be secure. Yet

few other theorists of his order of achievement have combined such
contributions with such defects: imprecise definition, lack of internal
consistency, the tendency to generalize on the basis of inadequate evidence,
and, in the Spirit of the Laws, a deplorable lack of organization. To discriminate
what remains permanently valuable in Montesquieu from what is unacceptable
—this is the difficulty complicating any critical exposition of his thought.

Other problems may perplex the modern reader. Montesquieu claimed to be

breaking altogether new ground. He prefaced the Spirit of the Laws with the
epigraph “prolem sine matrem” (a child born of no mother), yet it has been
shown that his work in many ways carries on that of his predecessors and shares
the concepts, attitudes, and political positions of his contemporaries The
genuine novelty of Montesquieu’s work is to be found in its terms of analysis
and its theoretical focus— the relations of a society’s laws to its type of
government, climate, religion, mores (moeurs,) customs (maniéres,) and
economy. Such an approach is inconsistent with the older notion that there
exists an eternal, natural law superior to positive law. Yet Montesquieu refused
to abandon the theory of natural law, despite its patent incompatibility with his
own.

Another difficulty arises from Montesquieu’s insistence that his writings did not
censure any established institution, that he took his principles not from his
prejudices, but from the nature of things. Yet he condemned despotism, slavery,
and religious persecution as contrary to natural law or human nature. Thus he
wavered between a positivist, relativist concept of law on the one hand and a
conventional acceptance of natural law on the other.

Montesquieu opposed intellectual systems, for he thought they falsify

experience; he emphasized the irreducible diversity of human institutions and
history. Yet he also asserted that he had laid down first principles from which
all particular cases follow—the histories of all nations are only consequences of
these first principles, and every particular law is connected with or depends on
another law of a more general extent

Montesquieu’s family stemmed from both the nobility of the sword and the
nobility of the robe; it could be traced back 350 years, which, in his view, made
its name neither good nor bad. His childhood was a curious combination of
aristocracy and rusticity. He was born in the castle at La Brede, but his
godfather was a beggar, chosen to remind Montesquieu of his obligation to the
poor. He was sent out to nurse with a peasant family for his first three years. His
mother died when he was seven; her early death contributed to his detachment
and to his distaste for enthusiasm; both qualities were equally prominent in his
writing and in his character.

At the age of 11 he was sent away to Juilly, a school maintained by the

Congregation of the Oratory. At Juilly Montesquieu acquired an education
stronger in Latin than in Greek; it was relatively liberal for its day. The
philosopher Malebranche was a member of the Congregation, and his influence
made itself felt. Montesquieu’s Latin studies impressed him with the value of
civic virtue and stoicism. In 1705 Montesquieu returned to Bordeaux to study
law. Between 1709 and 1713 he was a legal apprentice in Paris. There he came
to know some of the most advanced thinkers of his time.

On the death of an uncle in 1716, Montesquieu succeeded to considerable

wealth, land, and the office of président à mortier in the Parlement of Guyenne.
Montesquieu’s office was not a sinecure. He worked seriously at his legal
duties, but later confessed that he had not understood all the ancient procedures
of his court. The truth was that he did not much enjoy his life as a magistrate.
Nevertheless, in the Spirit of the Laws he supported the position of
the parlementaires against the monarchy, defended venality of office, and
condemned as despotism any attempt to divest the parlements of their political
functions

During his residence in Bordeaux, Montesquieu participated in the work of its

academy. At that time the provincial academies provided a setting within which
the nobility of the robe could develop an intelligentsia of its own; their members
included learned noblemen of the sword as well as educated commoners.
Montesquieu did experiments in natural history and physiology. The academy
gave him a distaste for prejudice, a priori reasoning, and teleological arguments;
from it he acquired a pre-disposition to materialism.

Q.4 How far you agree/ disagree with the Mill’s relativity of knowledge?
Discuss in detail Mill’s empiricism by focusing on his views on
language and logic.
Answer:
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) profoundly influenced the shape of nineteenth
century British thought and political discourse. His substantial corpus of works
includes texts in logic, epistemology, economics, social and political
philosophy, ethics, metaphysics, religion, and current affairs. Among his most
well-known and significant are A System of Logic, Principles of Political
Economy, On Liberty, Utilitarianism, The Subjection of Women, Three Essays
on Religion, and his Autobiography.Mill’s education at the hands of his
imposing father, James Mill, fostered both intellectual development (Greek at
the age of three, Latin at eight) and a propensity towards reform. James Mill
and Jeremy Bentham led the “Philosophic Radicals,” who advocated for
rationalization of the law and legal institutions, universal male suffrage, the use
of economic theory in political decision-making, and a politics oriented by
human happiness rather than natural rights or conservatism. In his twenties, the
younger Mill felt the influence of historicism, French social thought, and
Romanticism, in the form of thinkers like Coleridge, the St. Simonians, Thomas
Carlyle, Goethe, and Wordsworth. This led him to begin searching for a new
philosophic radicalism that would be more sensitive to the limits on reform
imposed by culture and history and would emphasize the cultivation of our
humanity, including the cultivation of dispositions of feeling and imagination
(something he thought had been lacking in his own education).
None of Mill’s major writings remain independent of his moral, political, and
social agenda. Even the most abstract works, such as the System of Logic and
his Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy, serve polemical
purposes in the fight against the German, or a priori, school otherwise called
“intuitionism.” On Mill’s view, intuitionism needed to be defeated in the realms
of logic, mathematics, and philosophy of mind if its pernicious effects in social
and political discourse were to be mitigated.
In his writings, Mill argues for a number of controversial principles. He defends
radical empiricism in logic and mathematics, suggesting that basic principles of
logic and mathematics are generalizations from experience rather than known a
priori. The principle of utility—that “actions are right in proportion as they tend
to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of
happiness”—was the centerpiece of Mill’s ethical philosophy. On Liberty puts
forward the “harm principle” that “the only purpose for which power can be
rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will,
is to prevent harm to others.” In The Subjection of Women, he compares the
legal status of women to the status of slaves and argues for equality in marriage
and under the law.

Q.5 John Stuart Mill was familiar with the works of Aristotle,
Hobbes, Plato, Jerry Bentham, Ricardo and Adam Smith. How was Stuart
inspired by their teachings? Give the analysis in the light of his philosophy.

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was an influential philosopher, economist,

politician, and senior official in the East India Company. A controversial figure
in 19th-century Britain, he advocated the use of classical economic theory,
philosophical thought, and social awareness in political decision-making and
legislation. Many of his views, including those on the legal status of women
and on slavery, were quite liberal for the day.
Mill combined economics with philosophy. He believed in a moral theory
called utilitarianism—that actions that lead to people's happiness are right and
that those that lead to suffering are wrong. Among economists, he's best-known
for his 1848 work, Principles of Political Economy, which became a leading
economic textbook for decades after its publication. 

Early Life and Education

John Stuart Mill was born in 1806 in London, the eldest son of the British
historian, economist, and philosopher James Mill. He grew up in a strict
household under a firm father and was required to learn history, Greek, Latin,
mathematics, and economic theory at a very young age.

Much of John Stuart Mill's beliefs, thoughts, and influential works can be
attributed to his upbringing and the ideology taught to him by James Mill. His
father became acquainted with the leading political theorist Jeremy Bentham in
1808, and together they started a political movement that embraced
philosophical radicalism and utilitarianism, which advocates "the greatest
amount of good for the greatest number of people." It was during this time that
the young Mill was indoctrinated with the economic theory, political thinking,
and social beliefs that would shape his later work.

It was actually this exact upbringing that gave him his foundation and also
brought about a mental breakdown—and later, a mental breakthrough. Mill
attributed prolonged periods of depression, sadness, and even suicidal thoughts
to the overbearing nature of his father and the radical system in which he was
raised. The mental lapse forced him to re-examine theories he had previously
accepted as true. Through this self-reflection, he began to make changes to
Bentham's utilitarian ideology to make it more positive, adopting the revised
theory as his own system of belief.

Mill spent most of his working life with the East India Company: He joined it
at age 16 and was employed there for 38 years. During 1865–68, he served as a
Member of Parliament (MP), representing the City of Westminster.

Notable Accomplishments

Mill's Ideology
John Stuart Mill is considered one of the most influential British thought
leaders on political discourse, including epistemology, economics, ethics,
metaphysics, social and political philosophy, and other concentrations.

He used his numerous articles, essays, and books to compare the legal status of
women at the time to the legal status of slaves, to promote radical empiricism
as a function of mathematics, and to pioneer the harm principle—the idea that
political power should only be wielded over a member of an organization when
that power is used to prevent harm to that member.

While a passionate believer in freedom and individual rights, as an economist

Mill was not a consistent advocate of a laissez-faire system: He did favor taxes
and government oversight, such as workplace regulations and limits to workers'
hours. His later writings suggest a shift away from classic economics' belief in
the free marketplace and capitalism towards socialism, or at least a mixed
economy.

On Liberty (1859), which addresses the nature and limits of the power that can

be legitimately exercised by society over the individual, introducing the harm
principle and defending free speech.

Utilitarianism (1863), which expounds on Bentham's original philosophy, using

it as the foundation of morals—rejecting the idea that it promotes narrow self-
interest, and arguing it aims for the betterment of society as a whole.

The Subjection of Women (1869), which makes the case for women’s suffrage
and gender equality.

Three Essays on Religion (1874), which critiques traditional, religious

orthodoxy and advocates a more liberal "religion of humanity" (published
posthumously).

Autobiography (1874), which was written the year he died and published

posthumously.

 
The utilitarian creed, "which accepts as the foundation of morals utility, or the
greatest happiness principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they
tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of
happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by
unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure."

—John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism

Personal Life
The love of Mill's life was Harriet Hardy Taylor. After two decades of a close
friendship (when she was wife to another man), they married in 1851. An
intelligent, liberal thinker and writer in her own right, Taylor inspired much of
Mill's work—he openly acknowledges her influence in The Subjection of
Women—and she may well have edited or co-written some of his pieces.
Certainly, she helped turn Mill’s attention to the progressive ideals which she
was passionate about: socialism, women’s rights, individual liberty, and a
“utopian” view of humanity’s improvability