| Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: And Three Brief Essays |  | Authors: James Fitzjames Stephen, Richard A. Posner
Publisher: University Of Chicago Press
Category: Book
List Price: $27.50
Buy New: $23.50
as of 9/10/2010 12:41 CDT details
You Save: $4.00 (15%)
In Stock
New (9) Used (12) from $18.98
Seller: the_book_depository_
Rating:  1 reviews
Media: Paperback
Pages: 312
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.9
Dimensions (in): 8.5 x 5.5 x 0.9
ISBN: 0226772586
Dewey Decimal Number: 320.01
EAN: 9780226772585
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Similar Items:
| |
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
With great energy and clarity, Sir James Fitzjames Stephen (1829-1894), author of History of the Criminal Law of England, and judge of the High Court from 1879-91, challenges John Stuart Mill's On Liberty and On Utilitarianism, arguing that Mill's view of humanity is sentimental and utopian. "His writing is strong meat--full of the threat of hellfrire, the virtue of government by the lash and a fervent belief that the state cannot remain neutral but has a duty to espouse a moral code."--Roderick Munday, Cambridge Law Journal
|
| Customer Reviews:
A great conservative mind December 19, 2006
Michael A Neulander (VA)
14 out of 14 found this review helpful
John Stuart Mill's "liberty principle" caused a great schism between his and James Stephen's ideas of human nature, the public role of religion, and society's duty in setting moral standards for its citizens. James Fitzjames Stephen lived from 1829 to 1894. After serving as a judge in India for three years, Stephen decided to write a critical analysis of Mill's book, while on his long voyage back to Great Britain in 1872. While Stephen was in India, he observed with great trepidation, political changes taking place back in Great Britain after the passage of the Reform Act of 1867. This legislation granted voting rights to male urban workers. "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity was the most penetrating defense of conservative values written in Victorian times--and after Burke and perhaps Coleridge, the most important work of English conservative thought." However, Stephen's book never really caught on in his lifetime. Alexander Bain recorded Mill's only known comment on Stephen's book. Stephen "does not know what he is arguing against; and is more likely to repel than to attract people." These were very prophetic words, "Stephen suffered the fate of most men out of step with their age: unable to attract any school of thought, his ideas failed to bear fruit in his lifetime." While Mill's book On Liberty has had numerous printings after its publication, Stephen's book laid virtually dormant until 1967, when it finally came back into print. Though Stephen failed while he was alive to garner a multitude of adherents to his cause, his ideas have earned a considerable amount of vindication in the latter half of the twentieth century.
Stephen distilled Mill's "liberty principle" theory down to every person pleasing himself without harming his neighbor. This means that every moral system that interferes with Mill's "liberty principle," "either to obtain benefits for society at large other than protection against injury or to do good to the persons affected, would be wrong in principle." This leads Stephen to think that Mill had made a fatal flaw politically in his "liberty principle," when he said that free discussion was primarily all that society needed to rule its citizens. Once again, Stephen thought that Mill put too much faith in education advancing humanity to a place where a shared social morality would become obsolete. Stephen made his point with a bit of wit when he wrote, "Society cannot make silk purses out of sows' ears." First, Stephen argued that a large portion of the population has been and always would be either uneducated, or of dubious character. Second, Stephen argued that most of law-abiding society did not feel particularly constrained by the moral force and law imposed by society on them. After all, most of the citizens have enacted and supported these moral standards and laws through their elected representatives in government. Stephen agreed with Mill, that people felt most restrained in their actions by public opinion and from social ostracism.
Once again to restate the issue, Mill's main reason for proposing his "liberty principle" was to free people from the constraints placed on them by the moral values, customs, and mores of society. Mill wanted people to have unfettered freedom to experiment with their lives provided it did not harm others. Stephen rightly concluded that societies used force of morality and sometimes the law, depending on the severity of the act, in order to guard against social ills that a society deemed dangerous to its existence. "Laws and moral systems are conditions of life imposed upon men either by political power or by the force of argument." Thus, Stephen took great umbrage with Mill's "liberty principle," because it disallowed three types of coercion that Mill argued society had no business imposing on its citizens, since they did not meet the standard of self-protection, or of preventing harm to others. These three types of coercions are,
1. Coercion for the purpose of establishing and maintaining religions.
2. Coercion for the purpose of establishing and practically maintaining
morality.
3. Coercion for the purpose of making alterations in the existing forms
of government and social institutions.
Stephen pointed out, that all three type of coercion's were examples of coercion used by people in their opinion for the betterment of society. Simply stated, the world of politics and the world of morality cannot exist separately. Since these coercive forces went against Mill's "liberty principle," Stephen concluded that Mill would consign every system of morality to the dustbin.
Stephen believed that the correct answer in how to build and maintain a healthy society came from his readings of the English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, and from religious morality. Hobbes lived from 1588 to 1679, and he greatly influenced Stephen's knowledge of human history and psychology. Both Stephen and Hobbes correctly perceive that humankind has been constantly in fear and conflict with one another, "Man has a fearful disease..." Stephen wrote Hobbes on Government for the Saturday Review, which illustrated the influence Hobbes ideas had on Stephen. In his essay, Stephen writes, "If no one or more men had the power of issuing to others such commands as appeared reasonable to themselves, there would be no such thing as society amongst men." Stephen understands, as Thomas Hobbes did, that force lies at the root of all government. "People are said to govern others by law, where they influence their conduct by imposing laws upon them." In politics, moral persuasion and coercion went hand-in-hand, and Stephen expanded on this duality of moral persuasion and coercion to illustrate his point. One could not be a political leader without the ability to use moral persuasion to convince others to follow their leadership, and while possessing the capability of consolidating the force and power of their numbers. Stephen correctly realized, that it was only natural for people, when they came together to form societies, to bring with them shared religious and cultural values that would serve as the foundation of the society they wished to build.
Stephen's experience, as an attorney and judge, gave him a unique insight into human psychology, which had him arguing that most of the social ills perpetrated by humankind were done out of evil or weakness of willpower, and not out of ignorance. To illustrate his point in his argument, Stephen used, as an example, the poor plight of the drunkard. No drunkard would admit to making a reasoned choice to become a drunkard. If asked to reflect on their choice, they would freely admit that they had no willpower to stop their drinking habit. Looking at human misconduct, which Stephen saw a lot of as an attorney and judge, he adamantly believed that persuasion of argument alone, an idea that Mill supported, could do little to persuade people to change their mischievous ways. Thus, Stephen refuted Mill's idea of reasoned discussion being an adequate amount of force to change a person's actions. Only people that had control of their willpower would be open to change through the force of a reasoned argument. It was Stephen's experience that coercion through punishment and force of law, more times than not, changed one's conduct when they were devoid of an adequate willpower. Moral persuasion also had the ability to point to the consequences of one's actions. One could say that Society's laws were morality and force working in conjunction. Moral persuasion caused people to act in accordance with the law, because the force of punishment instilled fear in them. Stephen understood the human psychology of how in most cases, when moral persuasion and force were applied together to elicit the same outcome, some people considered themselves persuaded, while others considered themselves forced to commit the same act. This fact becomes abundantly clear for anyone who has raised or worked with children. One can observe how children react differently to the same argument. When adults ask children to conduct themselves in a certain way, some children persuaded by the reasoning of the argument will comply, while other children would have to be threatened with some form of punishment to comply. The preceding examples help to illustrate how society winds up infringing on people's liberty every day. People will always have to make choices based on moral persuasion and force, and once they choose, they will have to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Based on their character and psychological makeup, their actions will receive either reward or punishment. As a whole, this is how society operates; it persuades morally or threatens, causing people to act accordingly. Stephen rightly articulated that laws and punishments were nothing more than outgrowths of moral precepts, which were handed down by religious institutions in order to establish and maintain moral values that citizens of a society agreed to follow.
In fact, as a society matured, it would find many of its moral values evolving; thus, becoming constantly debated. Therefore, when Stephen observed what was taking place during the current political affairs of his day, he saw that even small issues before Parliament engender endless debate with seemingly no resolution, until finally a majority forms to solve the issue on their own terms. "Parliamentary government is simply a mild and disguised form of compulsion." Stephen observed that moral force was even more influential in his time, and would be so in the future. The most that one could hope for was that one could regulate and subdue the government's use of force. However, Stephen astutely observes that, "President Lincoln attained his objects by the use of a degree of force which would have crushed Charlemagne and his paladins and peers like so many eggshells."
Stephen knew through his study of history, that no amount of economic progress, improvement in education, freedom of religion, or political equality would change the fact that any society would always embrace shared moral, religious, and cultural values. Simple human nature taught Stephen, that most of the citizens in any society would want to impose their moral values and beliefs on all the members of the society. The majority of citizens in any society will constantly be jostling for the adoption of their beliefs, and will be probing the boundaries of how far they can impose their beliefs on the rest of society. Thus, the very best that citizens of a society can hope for is that those people who are in power, and have the public trust of most of a nation's citizens will follow Stephen's examples of legislative restraint, and respect for people's privacy as he defined privacy.
I read this book for a graduate class in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in philosophy, political science, and history.
| In Stock
|
|
|
| |
