Marlena wrote: "I wonder if any of you might be so gracious as to enlighten me as to whether or not Mill and Bentham really have had an impact on either "philosophical" or "regular" or everyday life?" Mill's 'On Liberty' is a must read for anyone studying political philosophy or political theory. In it, Mill provides a critical limit on democracy, in order to guard against, in his words, the tyranny of the majority. Here is this limit, in his own words: "The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." This essay was also influential in forming the conviction among liberal theorists that one virtue of democracy was that it could foster an on-going conversation between citizens, which would lead to humanity's continued improvement in both knowledge and character. Hence, freedom of speech and public debate, as well as the principle of toleration, are considered by many as not only useful, but a moral imperative. Again, Mill in his own words: "The beliefs which we have most warrant for have no safeguard to rest on, but a standing invitation to the whole world to prove them unfounded. If the challenge is not accepted, or is accepted and the attempt fails, we are far enough from certainty still; but we have done the best that the existing state of human reason admits of; we have neglected nothing that could give the truth a chance of reaching us: if the lists are kept open, we may hope that if there be a better truth, it will be found when the human mind is capable of receiving it; and in the meantime we may rely on having attained such approach to truth as is possible in our own day. This is the amount of certainty attainable by a fallible being, and this the sole way of attaining it." I don't know how to measure the influence of Mill, or any other philosopher, or person, for that matter. I leave that to those who make up lists. Rorty wrote that he didn't want to stop religious people from quoting, in public debate, from their authoritative texts because he wanted to ensure that he would be able to quote from Mill. Whatever one thinks of Rorty, I would at least agree that it is still worthwhile to quote from Mill. Shivering on the steppes, Phil Enns ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html