Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

by James Fitzjames Stephen

Book Overview

Students of political theory will welcome the return to print of this brilliant defense of ordered liberty. Impugning John Stuart Mill's famous treatise, On Liberty, Stephen criticized Mill for... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0865971102
• ISBN13: 9780865971103
• Release Date: June 1993
• Publisher: Liberty Fund
• Length: 299 Pages
• Weight: 1.15 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.9" x 6.3" x 9.3"
• Age Range: 18 to 10 years
• Grade Range: Postsecondary to Grade 5

Customer Reviews

A great conservative mind

John Stuart Mill's "liberty principle" caused a great schism between his and James Stephen's ideas of human nature, the public role of religion, and society's duty in setting moral standards for its citizens. James Fitzjames Stephen lived from 1829 to 1894. After serving as a judge in India for three years, Stephen decided to write a critical analysis of Mill's book, while on his long voyage back to Great Britain in 1872. While Stephen was in India, he observed with great trepidation, political changes taking place back in Great Britain after the passage of the Reform Act of 1867. This legislation granted voting rights to male urban workers. "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity was the most penetrating defense of conservative values written in Victorian times--and after Burke and perhaps Coleridge, the most important work of English conservative thought." However, Stephen's book never really caught on in his lifetime. Alexander Bain recorded Mill's only known comment on Stephen's book. Stephen "does not know what he is arguing against; and is more likely to repel than to attract people." These were very prophetic words, "Stephen suffered the fate of most men out of step with their age: unable to attract any school of thought, his ideas failed to bear fruit in his lifetime." While Mill's book On Liberty has had numerous printings after its publication, Stephen's book laid virtually dormant until 1967, when it finally came back into print. Though Stephen failed while he was alive to garner a multitude of adherents to his cause, his ideas have earned a considerable amount of vindication in the latter half of the twentieth century. Stephen distilled Mill's "liberty principle" theory down to every person pleasing himself without harming his neighbor. This means that every moral system that interferes with Mill's "liberty principle," "either to obtain benefits for society at large other than protection against injury or to do good to the persons affected, would be wrong in principle." This leads Stephen to think that Mill had made a fatal flaw politically in his "liberty principle," when he said that free discussion was primarily all that society needed to rule its citizens. Once again, Stephen thought that Mill put too much faith in education advancing humanity to a place where a shared social morality would become obsolete. Stephen made his point with a bit of wit when he wrote, "Society cannot make silk purses out of sows' ears." First, Stephen argued that a large portion of the population has been and always would be either uneducated, or of dubious character. Second, Stephen argued that most of law-abiding society did not feel particularly constrained by the moral force and law imposed by society on them. After all, most of the citizens have enacted and supported these moral standards and laws through their elected representatives in government. Stephen agreed with Mill, that people felt most restrained in their actions by public

A great conservative mind

John Stuart Mill's "liberty principle" caused a great schism between his and James Stephen's ideas of human nature, the public role of religion, and society's duty in setting moral standards for its citizens. James Fitzjames Stephen lived from 1829 to 1894. After serving as a judge in India for three years, Stephen decided to write a critical analysis of Mill's book, while on his long voyage back to Great Britain in 1872. While Stephen was in India, he observed with great trepidation, political changes taking place back in Great Britain after the passage of the Reform Act of 1867. This legislation granted voting rights to male urban workers. "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity was the most penetrating defense of conservative values written in Victorian times--and after Burke and perhaps Coleridge, the most important work of English conservative thought." However, Stephen's book never really caught on in his lifetime. Alexander Bain recorded Mill's only known comment on Stephen's book. Stephen "does not know what he is arguing against; and is more likely to repel than to attract people." These were very prophetic words, "Stephen suffered the fate of most men out of step with their age: unable to attract any school of thought, his ideas failed to bear fruit in his lifetime." While Mill's book On Liberty has had numerous printings after its publication, Stephen's book laid virtually dormant until 1967, when it finally came back into print. Though Stephen failed while he was alive to garner a multitude of adherents to his cause, his ideas have earned a considerable amount of vindication in the latter half of the twentieth century. Stephen distilled Mill's "liberty principle" theory down to every person pleasing himself without harming his neighbor. This means that every moral system that interferes with Mill's "liberty principle," "either to obtain benefits for society at large other than protection against injury or to do good to the persons affected, would be wrong in principle." This leads Stephen to think that Mill had made a fatal flaw politically in his "liberty principle," when he said that free discussion was primarily all that society needed to rule its citizens. Once again, Stephen thought that Mill put too much faith in education advancing humanity to a place where a shared social morality would become obsolete. Stephen made his point with a bit of wit when he wrote, "Society cannot make silk purses out of sows' ears." First, Stephen argued that a large portion of the population has been and always would be either uneducated, or of dubious character. Second, Stephen argued that most of law-abiding society did not feel particularly constrained by the moral force and law imposed by society on them. After all, most of the citizens have enacted and supported these moral standards and laws through their elected representatives in government. Stephen agreed with Mill, that people felt most restrained in their actions by public