Heroes and Reformers of History. ..No. 1  

JOHN STUART MILL: LAMP OF REASON

This series of ten installments will be on heroes and reformers representing the whole gamut of history, ancient and modern. They will be people who have either influenced my own thinking or have gained my admiration both for their moral and intellectual courage and for their unique contribution to the church and to society. It will in a way be a list of my own heroes, but each one is chosen because I am persuaded that in introducing these people to you that you will be greatly blessed and will be encouraged not only to make them your own friends too but also to emulate their exemplary walk in life and to be uplifted by their values. There will be no particular order, chronological or otherwise, in their appearance. I am sort of introducing them to you as they come to mind, and what a tremendous person each one is! But it may be that you have barely heard of some of them and a few of them not at all, unsung heroes some of them could be called.

I start with John Stuart Mill because he recently reentered my life when I was discussing freedom with students at Dallas Christian College in a class in philosophy. Mill is a hero in man's long struggle to be free. Had he lived in the 1960's instead of a century earlier (He died in 1873), and in this country instead of England, he would have been called a "freedom rider." His essay On Liberty is one of the greatest freedom documents ever written. In it he argues that the greatest good of society as a whole is achieved by allowing each person to exercise his own freedom unrestrained, even if he chooses to harm himself, so long as he does no harm to others. "Over himself, over his own body and mind," he writes, "the individual is sovereign." He insists that even error must have free reign, for error is not to be overcome by force but by clearer thinking.

Mill was a child prodigy and he must have had one of the highest IQ's in history. His early training, which he received from his father, sounds more like a record of medieval torture, compared to today's demands on youth, than the superb education that it was. He learned arithmetic and Greek when only three, and by eight he was reading the great Greek and Latin classics. He delighted in the study of world history, and while yet but a boy he wrote a history of Rome. His father led him into logic, philosophy, and economics. At 12 he began Aristotle. His father, who must have been a superb educator, impressed upon him the importance of making knowledge useful. He was not simply to have a head full of facts and data, but he was to learn to think and to use his education for the good of society. Early on he resolved to be a reformer of the world, a thinking reformer.

At 21 Mill suffered a mental breakdown, but through sheer determination and a powerful intellect he soon bounced back and was able to pursue his career. At 25 he married a girl of such "character and ability," as he put it, that she wielded a great influence on his life and helped shape his thought. After a brief study of law he began work with the British East India Co. and eventually had a position equivalent to our undersecretary of state. After serving the British government for 30 years, he retired with the intention of giving full time to writing. But he was put up as a candidate for Parliament. Even though he refused to campaign he was nonetheless elected. William Gladstone, Britain's great prime minister at the time, said of Mill: "He had a good sense and practical tact of politics, together with the high independent thought of a recluse. He did us all good."

He did us all good! That came to be Mill's rule in life. He dedicated his great mind to a search for the right ethic for a society, and he became convinced that the utilitarian theory of Jeremy Bentham was the answer, the essence of which was, "The greatest good for the greatest number of people," which was known also as "the greatest happiness principle." While this moral philosophy was widely received at the time, Mill's own father being one of its champions, he became known as "the utilitarian heretic" because he radically modified it. In originating the theory Bentham had identified the greatest good as the greatest pleasure, stressing quantitative pleasures. Mill was willing to identify good as pleasure, but he stressed qualitative pleasure, insisting that spiritual and intellectual pleasures are to be preferred to sensual pleasures. As a Christian he argued that Jesus Christ was the greatest of all utilitarians in that he sought the greatest pleasure (or happiness) for the greatest number of people - moral and spiritual pleasure for all mankind.

While Bentham presented utilitarianism as egoistic and as appealing to self-interest (hedonism it is called), Mill taught that the greatest pleasure might be utterly unselfish and even self-denying. Christ's purpose was to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number, and yet he had to endure shame and pain to accomplish this. But even amidst such suffering our Lord found joy in that he was pleasing his heavenly Father and bringing healing to all mankind. Bentham was right that pleasure or happiness is the point of life, Mill conceded, but it is the nature of the pleasure or happiness that matters. Mill believed that the joy of understanding may be a sad joy, but that those who have tasted it would not exchange it for all the frivolous gaieties and empty hopes of the vulgar.

It is his ideas on freedom, however, that are his most significant contribution, and we do well to listen to him since we continue to live in a world in which freedom is threatened. He held that society has no right whatever to interfere with liberty of action except for self-protection. The individual's own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant to restrain him. We can try to dissuade the one who has harmful habits but we cannot compel him. Nor can we hinder the one who teaches what we believe to be false and injurious to society, for history proves that we are often wrong when we do so and thus deny mankind of truth, as in the case of Jesus and Socrates, who were murdered by those who believed they were wrong.

To deny liberty to those we believe to be wrong, Mill says, is to claim infallibility for ourselves. Even if we know a position to be false, we should still allow for its free expression, for a person in his search for truth has the right to be wrong and to express it. Besides, there may be some truth in his false position that can be learned from its free expression. Even if a position be wholly false it is still right for it to be expressed, for it is good for others to hear it. Truth has nothing to fear from error, for error causes truth to shine all the brighter. "He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that," Mill insists.

The true truth-seeker will learn from the one who is in error, Mill observes, for one must know the position he rejects if he is to know what he believes. Truth must face up to error, and this should be done by giving a fair hearing to the one who really believes the error and who defends it earnestly. The truth-seeker must be willing to hear error in its most plausible and persuasive form, and he must face the full force of the difficulty that a false position presents. Otherwise he will not possess that portion of truth that meets and disposes of the difficulty. This is why he wants the false position to be presented in its most favorable light. Too, when a pernicious view is allowed freedom of expression it helps the one who holds the error to see that it is indeed wrong. So long as he is denied freedom the erroneous view will become increasingly important to him.

Mill notes that most educated people are often in the position of arguing fluently and persuasively for a position they believe to be true and yet do not really know that it is true, for they never place themselves in the position of the person who differs with them. They have no idea what one might say who holds a different view. They are blind in one eye in that they see only the side they want to see.

Some say that Mill went too far in allowing for dissenting views, for in times of national emergency it might be necessary to curtail the speech of demagogues whose aim is to stir up unrest. Justice Holmes was right that whenever there is "clear and present danger" in the expression of opinion society has the right to repress it without waiting for it to do overt harm. But Mill was speaking generally, and his ideas of freedom of opinion apply to most all situations in both church and society. It is a sad day for any church when it seeks to stifle and discourage dissenting views, and when preachers and elders deem themselves to be beyond being questioned by honest inquiry we can only conclude that they are not free men and do not really want a free church. We have too many leaders in the church today who have no interest in dissenting views, and they want their decisions to be accepted without question.

John Stuart Mill speaks to the church of our day as well as his own. We are not a free people when we have leaders who rely more on pressure and force than on reason and moral suasion. If it could be said of us as it was said of him we would be in a better position to bring about the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people:

"He held as high as any man the lamp of reason, and it burned the more brightly because he lived." —the Editor