James Mill was indeed a classic Benthamite utilitarian, and a very close
friend of Bentham's to boot. You are mistaken, though, if you think that John
Stuart Mill, the son of James, was opposed to making pleasure the sole good.
He just had a more nuanced conception of pleasure, or to use his word,
happiness. Of course James M and Bentham extended the principle of utility to
politics, education, economics, law, and education, not just individual
conduct (which did not much interest them); not for nothing were they called
the Philosophical Radicals. There was no debate bewteen James M and Marx,
since James M was dead before Marx was up and running, but Marx's attack on
James M is hardly what I would call approving. He was likewise dubiousabout
son JS, the preeminant political economist of his age. (And later a market
socialist, as we would say). --jks
In a message dated 6/21/00 4:19:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< This, I agree. _On James Mill_ (McL. _Selected Political Writings of
Marx_), Marx refers somewhat "approvingly" to John's father. I have to
read the text once again though, since my memory poorly serves me at the
moment.. James Mill must belong to the tradition of utilitarianism,
sharing a great deal of philosophical ideas with Bentham. Bentham's
individualism was later criticized by John, the son who thought that
pleasure maximizing principle should not be the sole concern of
individualism. So John wanted to extend the scope of utility to areas
other than individuals (public education, etc..). I have to open my exam
notes for the distinction between James and John Mill to make sense of the
debate between James and Marx. It does not seem terrribly
clear to me at the moment, but I know Marx talks positively of James,
if not very supportively.
>>
