Ideas for Society:

On the whole, Mill is striving for a society that ensures positive liberty , has a moral conscience, and promotes excellence. He seeks to solve the question, how can we be free, moral and creative? He argues that modern individuality must function within the context of an overarching moral framework. As Devigne argues, "Mill clearly projects modern political goals, such as choice, individuality, and the conquering of human suffering. But he also addresses traditional concerns of political philosophy -- virtue, human excellence, God and religion, and the common good."

One of Mill's chief concerns is that within modern society a standard of human excellence is lacking. Mill is concerned that Christianity has lowered our standards of excellence -- lowered our ideals, even --and that people are not seeking to be creative, autonomous, innovative beings anymore. Within Christian culture, Mill argues, "the denial of the will stabilizes a stagnant status quo, and worse yet, this self-denying conformity is then lauded as human excellence."

Mill recognizes that in the past -- Athenian society, as an example -- there were noble and high ideas of human excellence, and these types of excellence were cultivated and refined. As Devigne argues, Mill felt that the Athenians understood that the "cultivation of genius -- individuals willing to transcend prevailing standards of right and wrong in order to be creative -- is necessary to avoid degeneration."   Mill realized that "the stronger an individual's will, the more that person contains the raw material for being one who originates new practices"  and those types of individuals are infinitely valuable to society as a whole. Mill argued that the Athenians understood that "originality is not always genius, but genius is always originality; and a society  which looks jealously and distrustfully on original people -- which imposes its common level of opinion, feeling, and conduct on all its individual members -- may have the satisfaction of thinking itself very moral and respectable, but must do without genius."

Furthermore, Mill advocates that his ideal society should advocate liberty. Mill believes that human development is best fostered in an atmosphere of freedom, and that maximizing human development is crucial to the attainment of a better society. This is his core premises for advocating positive liberty for all.

Mill believes that society needs to foster a moral conscience for a variety of reasons. First of all, Mill seeks to ensure negative liberty -- or, the liberty to be free from harm. Mill recognizes that liberty inevitably leads to a clash of ideas, and then there will be a tendency for some to try and dominate others. In Mill's discussion on human excellence in On Liberty, we will find him explicitly addressing the problem of Alcibiades-like people  whose willfulness can lead to random acts of good and evil. He believes that liberal societies need to learn to control those types of individuals without undermining their creativity.  Mill cautions that creative, willful individuals must not be allowed to become corrupt and pursue private gain at the public's expense. Also, Mill recognizes that we need an idea of the good and the bad in order to not just act but to act with purpose. Members of a society need morality to be virtuous.

Therefore, Mill argues in On Liberty that there is a need to develop an idea of human excellence that blends the creative qualities of Pericles with the moral idea of the good expressed by Plato and the Calvanist John Knox. As Devigne argues, Mill asserts that to prevent the willful from impinging on the right of others (the Alcibiades-types), authoritative norms are required. Social norms will prevent most people from becoming too willful, and will provide a concern for the well-being of others among those who are capable of transcending norms and conventions (the Pericles-type): "Pericles is presented in chapter 3 [of On Liberty] as being the standard of excellence for modern liberalism, representing as he does the passionate individual who transcends ordinary practices and views to pursue the public good."

Women:

Therefore, these convictions about freedom and human development, together with an abiding concern for justice, form the core of Mill's feminism. Mill argues that women's status in the world is one of the last frontiers of human society.

Mill begins his argument by asserting that women ought to have the liberty and the rights that men do. He argues that originally, because women were physically inferior to men, men began to oppress women, but over time, women's physical inferiority was translated into oppressive social and legal conventions. However, Mill argues, convention does not translate into a justifiable right that men have to dominate women:
 

"The opinion in favor of the present system, which entirely subordinates the weaker sex to the stronger, rests upon theory only; for there never has been trial made of any other: ... And in the second place, the adoption of this system of inequality never was the result of deliberation, or forethought, or any social ideas, or any notion whatever of what conduced to the benefit of humanity or the good order of society. It arose simply from the fact that from the earliest twilight of human society, every women (owing to the value attached to her by men, combined with her physical inferiority in muscular strength) was found in a state of bondage to some man. Laws and systems of polity always begin by recognizing the relations they find already existing between individuals. They convert what was a mere physical fact into a legal right, give it the sanction of society, and principally aim at the substitution of public and organized means of asserting and protecting these rights."

Mill argues that it is a feature of liberal political society that we value certain kinds of freedoms and basic liberties; namely, the freedom to pursue one's goals and aims, the freedom of movement and the choice of occupation, powers and prerogatives of offices and positions of responsibility, and the social basis of self-respect. On this basis, Mill argues that women deserve all the same legal rights and freedoms that men enjoy and it is not justifiable to legally subordinate women: "I think that almost everyone, in the existing state of opinion in politics and political economy, would admit the injustice of excluding half the human race from the greater number of lucrative occupations, and from almost all high social functions."

As I argued before, Mill also believes that a moral conscience is a key feature of his ideal society. He believes that women are a source of morality in many ways, and this is imperative to his ideal society.

First of all, Mill argues that women tend to be more naturally moral. Because women are more susceptible to violence and because they are not taught fighting themselves, they tend to be more inclined to limit violence and its excesses and to find other ways of settling differences. Also, Mill argues, that women tend to give ideals and abstract concepts a human face:
 

"A woman seldom runs wild after an abstraction. The habitual direction of her mind to dealing with things as individuals rather than in group, and (what is closely connected with it) her more lively interest in the present feelings of persons, which makes her consider first of all, in anything which claims to be applied to practice, in what manner persons will be affected by it -- these two things make her extremely unlikely to put faith in any speculation which loses sight of individuals and deals with things as if they existed for the benefit of some imaginary entity, some mere variation of the mind, not resolvable into the feelings of living beings."

Also, Mill argues women are the teachers of morality within the family. Furthermore, lately the family, and no other institution, is the source of morality and where people learn social cooperation. Because of this, Mill argues that if children are taught in the home an ethos of domination, it is harder then for them to learn decency in a broader sphere. Mill argues that one of the leading principles of our society is that we believe that people ought to be respected based on their merit. "The principle of the modern movement in morals and politics, is that conduct, and conduct alone, entitles to respect: that not what men are, but what they do, constitutes their claim to deference; that above all, merit, and not birth, is the only rightful claim to power and authority." When men are given privilege based on nothing except their sex, he will have a tendency to be arrogant and egotistical. Therefore, he argues, when people (such as little boys) are given privilege not based on merit, it promotes decadence and bad forms of behavior.

Mill asserts that there are two sides to human nature: the cruel, mean dominant side, and the social, decent side that considers the rights and values of other people. Mill argues that liberty for women will enforce one type of nature and discourage the sterner virtues. The laws that would promote equality for women would therefore encourage a moral consciousness: "I believe that equality of rights would abate the exaggerated self abnegation which is the present artificial ideal of feminine character, and that a good woman would not be more self-sacrificing than the next man; but on the other hand, men would be much more unselfish and self-sacrificing than at present, because they would no longer be taught to worship their own will as such a grand thing that it is actually the law for another rational being."

Also, Mill asserts that sexual politics have played an important role in keeping men in line and moral. That, in order to win women's affections, men have learned to behave well (and morally) and have learned to act in someone else's interest. Mill argues that chivalry is, in a sense, one of society's moral guidelines, and has fostered the sentiments of "spirit and generosity"  and in general has been useful in cultivating a moral conscience. In other words, women do a good job taming the warriors.

All in all, as Devigne argues, Mill believes that eliminating the laws that restrict the rights of women will contribute to a "moral regeneration" in society. First, the freeing of women from a dependent relationship within the family will erode a social basis for male attitudes of cruelty and domination. Second, the extension of the franchise to women will promote a heightened concern for public morality by the state, a development that Mill welcomes with open arms."   Mill's view of the relationship between women and morality indicates that he believes modern individuality needs moral education to structure the behavior of both weak and willful. Women who focus on domestic matters encourage the prosaic but socially necessary ideals of honesty, frugality, fidelity, restraint, and humility.

However, Mill has a difficult time reconciling the moral conscience that women provide with the fettering of creative and innovative talent that often come as a result. In other words, if women are the basis for morality and do a good job taming the warriors, she might also tame the innovative, creative types.  By being concerned merely with her family and other smaller ambitions, a women could tame her husband and discourage him from attaining higher goals beyond convention. Devigne argues, "on the one hand, women tame the weak and wicked men, preventing them from becoming alcoholics, unemployed, or philanderers. On the other hand, women fetter men from becoming great innovators who serve the public good. The wife is the auxiliary of common public opinion ... a dead weight, a drag, upon every aspiration of his to be better than public opinion requires him to be. It is hardly possible for one of these bonds, to attain exalted virtue."  Mill argues:
 

"The wife frequently exercises even too much power over the man; she is able to affect his conduct in think in which she may not be qualified to influence it for good -- in which her influences may be not only enlightened, but employed on the morally wrong side; and in which he would act better if left to his own prompting."

This would be detrimental to a innovative creative man who's aspirations are higher than merely the preservation and conventional success of his family.

However, Mill ponders whether or not it is lack of education alone that hinders women from understanding issues on a larger scale:
 

"It is also to be considered that all the education which women receive from society inculcates on them the feeling that the individuals connected with them are the only ones to whom they owe ant duty -- the only ones whose interest they are called upon to care for; while, as far as education is concerned, they are left strangers even to the elementary ideas which are presupposed in any intelligent regard for larger interests or higher moral objects."

Mill concedes that maybe women seek to manipulate their husbands because they have no other outlet for their energies:

"By entirely sinking her own existence in her husband; by having no will (or by persuading him that she has no will) but his, in anything which regards their joint relation, and by making it the business of her life to work upon his sentiments, a wife may gratify herself by influencing, and very probably perverting, his conduct, in those of his external relations which she has never qualified herself to judge of, or in which she is herself wholly influenced by some personal or other partiality or prejudice."

Also, Mill argues that there would be talented women who would be the innovative creative types (no doubt he was thinking about Harriet Taylor). Mill advocates that the higher creative types should marry other higher creative types, and this could lead to unbounded excellence. Devigne argues that "equal rights for women will allow a talented few to work with their partners at transcending prevailing norms and becoming innovators that promote the public good."

In the end, Mill feels that society will be better off if the status of women is elevated. Treating women like equals will help foster a Millian ideal for society. Mill's ideal society will not be complete unless women are included.

Ideas for Society

Nietzsche's ideal society is profoundly different than Mill's. He is, in general, more concerned with fostering excellence and creative, autonomous, innovative individuals than creating a moral conscience or necessarily ensuring liberty for everyone. His greatest concern is that men are no longer being virtuous, innovative and creative, and that man's will has been tamed by both Christianity and the Enlightenment.

Nietzsche believes that there are essentially two types of natures: a higher nature (or, the "master" nature) and a lower nature (or, the "slave" nature). The master natures, or the higher types, are innovative and willful. They have characteristics such as wit, attractiveness, intelligence, toughness, endurance, etc. Furthermore, they have a deep understanding of their society, human nature in general, and the needs of men, and they are able to use this understanding to manipulate others and to exert their will on others. The master types create new modes of thinking and ethics, and they drive the masses. This implies that the masters assume that truth is relative, and they seek to create new truths and new mores. The slave natures, on the other hand, are passive, fearful, hateful of the higher types, humble and resentful, and are mostly concerned with prosaic concern like self-preservation. They assume, unlike the masters, that truth is exogenous to man, and that truth is absolute.

Nietzsche argues that in the past, nature has been marked by the dynamic push and pull of the creative willful types and the common self-preserving masses. This conflict, he believes, has inspired creativity and innovation, and has lead to man's greatest achievements. He is worried, though, that because man's will has been tamed by both Christianity and the Enlightenment, the conflict and the dynamic energy that is fostered when the high natures and the lower natures clash will no longer exist. Therefore, his aim for society is to reinstill that conflict, and to promote a society where the creative and innovative man can flourish.

Nietzsche believes that Christianity has weakened man's will in the Western world. Jesus himself represents a weaker type -- or a slave morality -- and his teachings glorify the weaker nature. After all, Jesus is a god, and yet he is a man too. He represents the ordinary and common masses, and he is concerned with the petty concerns of man and his everyday life. Nietzsche argues that the idea of Jesus as both man and god has lowered man's ideals. Because god has become more familiar and is more and more like us, we have brought him down to our level instead of trying to live up to him.

This is vastly different from the Greeks and their views about god. The Greeks, to Nietzsche, represent nature and in their society excellence was exalted. First of all, the Greeks maintained (unlike the Christians) that the gods were the only ones who were immortal -- after all, that's what made them gods. Humans were merely mortal, and could only achieve immortality by being virtuous and excellent and by withstanding the test of history. This, Nietzsche argues, inspired man to be creative and innovative, willful and excellent. Furthermore, the Greeks were polytheistic. They had many gods, and every god was the best at something. The gods, therefore, represented different types of natures and different types of excellence. Lastly, Nietzsche points out that the Greeks (unlike the Christians) were motivated by the god's gratitude, and not by the god's pity. Because man aspired to do great an noble things to gain the gods approval, a high type of excellence was fostered.

Nietzsche further believes that the Enlightenment has also tamed our will. The task of the Enlightenment was to come up with a rationality for everyone. This is a rationality that is concerned with only tangible goods, and self-preservation. It is democratic, and it focuses on the needs of the low.

Nietzsche argues that in the Western world we have lost sight of what is truly good -- namely, the pursuit of excellence. Christianity has glorified the weak natures, and aspiring to be like Jesus is aspiring to be weak. Jesus himself represents a weak nature, one who acts altruistically, selflessly, disinterestedly, unegostically, and in particular, out of pity. Susceptibility to pity, Nietzsche argues, will hinder the aims of one's will. Christianity, unlike Athenian culture, holds the strong down, and preaches that god loves everyone no matter how innovative or creative you are. Nietzsche is concerned that man is no longer willful or creative, and all we are concerned with is getting into heaven. Therefore, Nietzsche believes that society's goal should be to reinstill the dynamic between the high and the low types.

It is also important to note that Nietzsche, unlike Mill, does not think that we can have a society that ensures freedom and liberty for all, encourages a moral conscience, and also fosters creative types. He feels that naturally the higher types will always seek to exert their will over the lower types. In this sense, the lower types cannot be ensured liberty, necessarily, because their liberty may be stripped by the higher types.

Women

Nietzsche believes that woman are naturally weaker than men -- they have always been, and that is one of the great truths of the ages. Women are "mediocre"  and they aren't naturally inclined to learn or to understand abstract concepts.  To Nietzsche, woman are naturally second class to men, and they have an instinct for a secondary role.  Women represent the masses to Nietzsche. They tend to be religious, and therefore also represent the slave morality. They are concerned mostly with self-preservation and are petty. They are not trying to overcome nature, be autonomous, creative or innovative: "How much "slave" is still residual in woman, for example!"

Therefore, Nietzsche is greatly concerned that women are seeking equality in opportunity with men. He believes that women's modern cry for equality will be detrimental to Europe, because it will elevate the position of the weaker to that of an equal. After all, women are lower types by nature, and if they begin to have power, the conflict between the high types and the low types will cease to exist because they are on equal footing. After all, Nietzsche strongly advocates that the idea of the good should not come from the masses, the lower types, and women. The idea of the good should come from the high types, the conquerors, the men. Treating women like equals will be harmful to society because it will end the conflict that is necessary for human excellence to persevere.
 

"Woman wants to become self-reliant -- and for that reason she is beginning to enlighten men about "woman as such: this is one of the worst developments of the general uglification of Europe. For what must these clumsy attempts of women at scientific self-exposure bring to light! Woman has much reason for shame; so much pedantry, superficiality, schoolmarmishness, petty presumption, petty licentiousness and immodesty lies concealed in woman -- one only need to study her behavior with children! -- and so far all this was at bottom best repressed and kept under control by fear of man. Woe when "the eternally boring in woman" -- she is rich in that! -- is permitted to venture forth! When she begins to unlearn thoroughly and on principle her prudence and art -- of grace, of lay, of chasing away worries, or lightening burdens and taking things lightly -- and her subtle aptitude for agreeable desires! ...

Unless a woman seeks a new adornment for herself that way -- I do think adorning herself is part of the Eternal-Feminine?-- she surely want to inspire fear of herself-- perhaps she seeks mastery. But she does not want truth: what is truth to woman? From the beginning, nothing has been more alien, repugnant, and hostile to woman than truth -- her great art is the lie, her highest concern is mere appearance of beauty. Let us men confess it: we honor and love precisely this art and this instinct in women -- we who have a hard time and for our relief like to associate with beings under whose hands, eyes, and tender follies our seriousness, our gravity and profundity almost appear to us like folly. ...

 We men swish that woman should not go on compromising herself through enlightenment -- just as it was wasn't thoughtfulness and consideration for woman that found expression in the church decree: [Woman should be silent in church]. It was for woman's good when Napoleon gave the all too eloquent Madame de Staël to understand: [Woman should be silent when it come to politics]. And I think it is a real friend of women that counsels them today: [Woman should be silent about woman.]"

"To go wrong on the fundamental problem of "man and woman," ... to dream perhaps of equal rights, equal education, equal claims and obligation -- that is a typical sign of shallowness, and a thinker who has proves shallow in this dangerous place -- shallow in his instinct -- may be considered altogether suspicious, even more -- betrayed, exposed: probably he will be too "short" for all fundamental problems of life, of the life yet to some, to, and incapable of attaining any depth. A man, on the other hand, who has depth, in his spirit as well as in his desires, including that depth of benevolence which is capable of severity and hardness and easily mistaken for them, must always think about woman as Orientals do: he must conceive of woman as a possession, as property that can be locked, as something predestined for service and achieving her perfection in that. ... As is well known, from Homer's time to the age of Pericles, as their culture increased along with the range of their powers, they also gradually became more sever, in brief, more Oriental, against woman. How necessary, how logical, how humanely desirable even, this was -- is worth pondering."

Mill and Nietzsche have profoundly different views on the natural and rightful positions of women in our society. But is not surprising, because they not only have different levels of respect for women's intellect and capabilities, the also both have vastly different ideas about the ideal human society. Nietzsche is primarily concerned with fostering human excellence, and the emancipation of women will fetter the promotion of excellence. Mill is concerned with human excellence too, but he also realizes that there needs to be a moral conscience within society to check the willful from becoming destructive. For Mill, the emancipation of women will not necessarily check excellence, but he has yet to see a society of educated women. Also, Mill realizes that women play an integral role in promoting a moral conscience within society, and this he values greatly.

I cannot help but reiterate that both these philosophers were writing from a time when women were not emancipated, and did not have the opportunities for education -- and therefore the tools for introspection and thoughtfulness -- as they do today. The true natures of the sexes might be becoming more and more apparent as we step away from constricting convention that dictates certain attitudes and roles, and into a world where women have the liberty to express their true natures. Empirically, even today it seems obvious that women and men have different natures, but that is not to say that women aren't idealistic, striving to be innovative and creative, introspective and angst-ridden, self-motivated, and/or willful. As Mill himself acknowledges, no one knows the "nature" of women because no one has ever seen them in a social state that approaches freedom.