Nietzsche, Mill: Morality, Freedom, and Society
Nietzsche: Genealogy of Morals
Nietzsche, a significant critic of Judaism and Christianity, and an anti-German figure, addresses the concepts of good and evil in his work, Genealogy of Morals. Originally educated to be a Protestant pastor, he later studied classical philology. Nietzsche defends the theory of a good God and an evil God, diverging from moral theology by arguing that human morality cannot be explained through higher beings.
His analysis of morality involves two key aspects:
- The genealogy of morals: Examining the conditions under which humans began to differentiate between good and bad (evil).
- The evaluation of morals: Assessing the value and interest in our methods of moral evaluation.
The Genealogy of Morals aids in moral evaluation, concluding that being evil does not equate to being an evil being, a critique aimed at English utilitarianism. Nietzsche examines the belief of causality, looking at shameful examples rather than resenting adverse effects. He identifies two major errors in the genealogy of English utilitarians: they believed actions were good or bad based on their effect on the recipient, whereas Nietzsche argues that the action’s impact on the agent determines its moral value. Moral values are created based on trials; for example, noble and strong individuals versus poor and weak priests who create values of pure and impure to defend themselves.
Mill: Concepts of Liberty
Mill employs two concepts of liberty, negative and positive, depending on the context. Negative freedom refers to the freedom of action, the absence of coercion or constraint on an individual. Positive freedom is intrapersonal, relating to free will. Mill primarily studies negative freedom, focusing on the choice of action, freedom of thought, opinion, expression, association, and the ability to forge one’s own life plan.
Limits of Individual Sovereignty
In Chapter IV, Mill discusses the limits of individual sovereignty and the authority of society. Unlike Hume, Mill does not subscribe to the contractualist theory. He identifies three possible restrictions on individual freedom by society:
- Principle of paternalism: Limiting an individual’s freedom for their own good without their consent.
- Principle of morality: Preventing acts deemed immoral.
- Principle of damage: Avoiding infringement of the rights of others.
Mill argues that only the principle of damage is legitimate. In other cases, society can use persuasion, unfavorable trials, or prevention, but should not interfere further.
Mass Society and Individualism
Echoing Alexis de Tocqueville’s concept of “mass society,” Mill is concerned about the depersonalizing, uniforming, and coercive effects of society and public opinion. He views the problem as a conflict between isolated, fragmented individuals and a powerful global society, lacking intermediate groups like associations, communities, or subcultures to bridge the gap between modern society and the individual.
Utilitarianism and Freedom
Mill reconciles this philosophy of freedom with the utilitarian principle, arguing that individual freedom and altruism are not in conflict. He posits that the state embodies both positions, with the pursuit of greater good and human purpose enhanced by freedom. Freedom leads to more happiness, and he understands humans as progressive beings who develop to their fullest potential by maximizing individual freedom and minimizing coercion. This development should be understood as individuality, originality, freedom, and variety of situations. Furthermore, individual development fosters better social development.