The Thammasat University Library has acquired a new book that should be useful for students interested in political philosophy, economics, political science, history, literature, sociology, and related subjects.

On John Stuart Mill is by Philip Kitcher, a British philosopher who is Professor Emeritus of philosophy at Columbia University, New York, the United States of America.

The TU Library collection includes other books by and about John Stuart Mill as well as another book by Professor Kitcher.

John Stuart Mill was an English political philosopher and economist who lived in the 1800s. His many lively ideas still have impact today internationally.

In 2019, the Hong Kong pro-independence activist Honcques Laus, currently living in exile in the United Kingdom, posed for a photograph reading a book by John Stuart Mill on the grassland of Victoria Harbor in Hong Kong.

Part of the publisher’s description of Professor Kitcher’s book follows:

Sharing insights from teaching Mill for many years, the eminent philosopher Philip Kitcher makes a cogent case for why we should read this nineteenth-century thinker now. He portrays Mill as a conflicted humanist who wrestled with problems that are equally urgent in our own time. Kitcher reflects on Mill’s ideas in the context of contemporary ethical, social, and political issues such as COVID mandates, gun control, income inequality, gay rights, and climate change. More broadly, he shows, Mill’s writings help us cultivate our own capacities for critical thought and ethical decision making.

Inviting readers into a conversation with Mill, this book shows that he supplies tools for thinking that are as valuable today as they were in the nineteenth century.

Perhaps in part because he wrote well, Mill’s ideas still retain the power to annoy or displease some readers, as if they had just been written.

Here are some thoughts by John Stuart Mill from books which are available to students in the TU Library collection or by the TU Library Interlibrary Loan (ILL) service:

What I stated was, that the Conservative party was, by the law of its constitution, necessarily the stupidest party. Now, I do not retract this assertion; but I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it. Now, if any party, in addition to whatever share it may possess of the ability of the community, has nearly the whole of its stupidity, that party, I apprehend, must by the law of its constitution be the stupidest party. And I do not see why hon. Gentlemen should feel that position at all offensive to them; for it ensures their being always an extremely powerful party.

• In a Parliamentary debate with the Conservative MP, John Pakington (1866)

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice, — is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.

• “The Contest in America,” Fraser’s Magazine (1862); later published in Dissertations and Discussions (1868)

How can great minds be produced in a country where the test of a great mind is agreeing in the opinions of small minds?

• As quoted in Egoists: A Book of Supermen (1909) by James Huneker

No longer enslaved or made dependent by force of law, the great majority are so by force of poverty; they are still chained to a place, to an occupation, and to conformity with the will of an employer, and debarred, by the accident of birth both from the enjoyments, and from the mental and moral advantages, which others inherit without exertion and independently of desert. That this is an evil equal to almost any of those against which mankind have hitherto struggled, the poor are not wrong in believing.

• Chapters On Socialism, London, 1879, ‘Introductory’

Everybody knows that the same sum of money is of much greater value to a poor man that to a rich one. Give £10 a year to the man who has but £10 a year, you double his income, and you nearly double his enjoyments. Add £10 more, you do not add to his enjoyments so much as you did by the first £10. The third £10 is less valuable than the second, and the fourth less valuable than the third. To the possessor of £1,000 a year the addition of £10 would be scarcely perceptible; to the possessor of £10,000 it would not be worth slooping for.

The richer a man is the less he is benefited by any further addition to his income. The man of £4,000 a year has four times the income of the man who has but £1,000; but does anybody suppose that he has four times the happiness?

• Primogeniture, in The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill

It is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.

• Utilitarianism (1861)

The object of this Essay is to explain as clearly as I am able grounds of an opinion which I have held from the very earliest period when I had formed any opinions at all on social political matters, and which, instead of being weakened or modified, has been constantly growing stronger by the progress reflection and the experience of life. That the principle which regulates the existing social relations between the two sexes — the legal subordination of one sex to the other — is wrong itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement; and that it ought to be replaced by a principle of perfect equality, admitting no power or privilege on the one side, nor disability on the other.

• The Subjection of Women (1869)

(All images courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)