Wendy Donner

I argue that Mill's view of individuality also plays an important role in promoting social pluralism and respect for difference. Firstly, I argue that in Mill's theory individuality is not merely an individual good but also a social good. Secondly, I argue that by expressing his appreciation of diversity, Mill's liberalism goes beyond tolerating difference and pluralism. His position is that pluralism should be appreciated rather than merely tolerated. Mill's appreciation of difference resonates with Iris Marion Young's ideal of the unoppressive city. However the structure of Mill's theory does place limits on the exercise of individual liberty. These limits are set down by the Liberty Principle in the essay On Liberty. I look at some cases. First, I examine the tensions between individuality and autonomy as they bump up against the needs of human connection. Second, I look at moral progress, for example the recognition of same‐sex marriage.

I offer here an interpretation and defense of John Stuart Mill's qualitative hedonism. One of the results of Mill's well-known mental crisis was a concept of utility substantially different from the orthodox Benthamite quantitative hedonism which Mill came to regard as being fraught with difficulties. He saw Bentham's concept as being excessively narrow, and he sought to overcome its limitations by enlarging his own concept of utility. He did this by including the quality of pleasures along with the quantity in the estimation of their worth. At the same time, Mill was highly critical of the intuitionist ethical theories of his day, and propounded utilitarianism as the rational, objective, and scientific alternative. So if Mill is to succeed in his enterprise of countering intuitionism while avoiding the pitfalls of Benthamite utilitarianism, he must retain the objectivity of Benthamism while repudiating its narrowness. Mill's critics have argued that when he opened up his concept of utility to include quality, he modified his theory so radically that he can no longer be called a hedonistic utilitarian, and that he relinquished the consis- tency and objectivity of Benthamite utilitarianism along with its weak- nesses. I argue here that Mill abandons neither hedonism nor utilitarianism, and that the objectivity and consistency of his theory are not undermined.