John Stuart Mill Quotes

It is an adherent condition of human affairs that no intention, however sincere, of protecting the interests of others can make it safe or salutary to tie up their own hands. Still more obviously true is it, that by their own hands only can any positive and durable improvement of their circumstances in life be worked out.

The yoke is naturally and necessarily humiliating to all persons, except the one who is on the throne, together with, at most, the one who expects to succeed to it.

If we believed that those agencies were appointed by a benevolent Providence as the means of accomplishing wise purposes which could not be compassed if they did not exist, then everything done by mankind which tends to chain up these natural agencies or to restrict their mischievous operation, from draining a pestilential marsh down to curing the toothache, or putting up an umbrella, ought to be accounted impious ; which assuredly nobody does account them, notwithstanding an undercurrent of sentiment setting in that direction which is occasionally perceptible.

It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question.

The utilitarian morality does recognise in human beings the power of sacrificing their own greatest good for the good of others. It only refuses to admit that the sacrifice is itself a good. A sacrifice which does not increase, or tend to increase, the sum total of happiness, it considers as wasted.

لو أن البشرية ناقص واحد على رأي واحد فليس للبشرية الحق أن تخرس هذا الشخص مثل ما أن هذا الشخص ليس له الحق أن يخرس البشرية لو كانت لدية القوة لفعل ذلك

Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant — society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it — its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own.

[T]he source of everything respectable in man either as an intellectual or as a moral being namely, that his errors are corrigible.

The struggle between Liberty and Authority is the most conspicuous feature in the portions of history with which we are earliest familiar, particularly in that of Greece, Rome, and England.

Have intercourse with females, acquire wealth.

Having said that Individuality is the same thing with development, and that it is only the cultivation of individuality which produces, or can produce, well-developed human beings, I might here close the argument: for what more or better can be said of any condition of human affairs, than that it brings human beings themselves nearer to the best thing they can be?

Who can compute what the world loses in the multitude of promising intellects combined with timid characters, who dare not follow out any bold, vigorous, independent train of thought, lest it should land them in something which would admit of being considered irreligious or immoral?

John Stuart Mill (20 May 1806 – 8 May 1873), English philosopher, political theorist, political economist, civil servant and Member of Parliament, was an influential liberal thinker of the 19th century whose works on liberty justified freedom of the individual in opposition to unlimited state control. He was an exponent of utilitarianism, an ethical theory developed by Jeremy Bentham, although his conception of it was very different from Bentham's. He clearly set forth the premises of the scientific method.

"در مورد هر انسانی که قضاوتش به راستی شایسته‌ی اطمینان است این سوال پیش می‌آید که چطور شده است عقیده‌ی وی این اندازه مورد اطمینان قرار گرفته است؟
برای اینکه فکرش برای شنیدن هر نوع تنقیدی از رفتار و عقایدش باز بوده است. برای اینکه عادت داشته است به تمام آن حرف‌هایی که بر ضد عقایدش اقامه می‌شده است گوش بدهد تا اینکه بتواند از گفته‌های صحیح مخالفان بهره‌مند گردد و در همان حال خود بی‌پرده ببیند که چه قسمت‌هایی از گفته‌ها و دلایل ایشان باطل است و بطلان آن را سر فرصت به دیگران هم نشان بدهد. برای اینکه احساس کرده است که تنها راهی که یک موجود بشری به کمک آن می‌تواند تا حدی به شناختن "سرتاپای یک موضوع" موفق گردد این است که به هر گونه حرف یا نظری که اشخاص مختلف، با عقاید مختلف، درباره‌ی آن موضوع دارند گوش دهد و تمام شکل‌هایی را که آن موضوع در افکار مختلف به خود می‌گیرد از نظرگاه صاحبان آن افکار بررسی کند. هیچ خردمندی جز با گذشتن از این راه خردمند نگردیده است و اصلا نیروی خالقه‌ی فهم بشر طوری آفریده نشده است که وی بتواند از راهی دیگر خردمند گردد."

The happiness which they meant was not a life of rapture, but moments of such, in an existence made up of few and transitory pains, many and various pleasures, with a decided predominance of the active over the passive, and having as the foundation of the whole not to expect more from life than it is capable of bestowing.