Thissuggestsonevitalpoint。Mill，asIhavesaid，hasendeavouredtoenlargeasmuchaspossiblethesphereofoperationofthefreewill——ofthepowerofindividualsorofdeliberateconsciouslegislation。Theresultistoexaggeratetheinfluenceofinstitutionsandtoneglecttheforces，intellectualandmoral，whichmustalwaysliebehindinstitutions。Wecanadmittothefulltheimportanceoftheeducationalinfluenceofpoliticalinstitutions，andthesurpassingvalueofenergy，self-reliance，andindividualresponsibility。Thesentimentisaltogethernoble，andMillexpressesitwithadmirablevigour。
Butthemoredecidedlyweholdhisviewofthedisease，themoreutterlyinadequateandinappropriateappearshisremedy。Thetendencytolevellingandvulgarising，sofarasitexists，cancertainlynotbecuredbyingeniousarrangementsofonepartofthepoliticalmachinery。ItakethistomarkMill’sweakestside。
Thetruthwasdivinedbytheinstinctofhisdemocraticallies。
Solongashevotedforextendingthesuffrage，theycouldleavehimtosavehisconsciencebyamusinghimselfwiththeseharmlessfancies。
VI。WOMEN’SRIGHTS
Mill’sSubjectionofWomenbringsoutmoreclearlysomeofthefundamentalUtilitariantenets。Noneofhiswritingsismoreemphaticallymarkedbygenerosityandloveofjustice。Acertainshrillnessoftonemarksthereclusetoolittleabletoappreciatetheanimalnatureofmankind。Yetinanycase，hemadeamosteffectiveprotestagainsttheprejudiceswhichstuntedthedevelopmentandlimitedthecareersofwomen。Milldeclaresatstarting，thattillrecentlythe’lawofforce’hasbeen’theavowedruleofgeneralconduct。’Onlyoflatehastherebeenevenapretenceofregulating’theaffairsofsocietyingeneralaccordingtoanymorallaw。’44*Thatmoralconsiderationshavebeentoolittleregardedasbetweendifferentsocietiesordifferentclassesispainfullyobvious。But’force’inanyintelligiblesenseisitselfonlymadeapplicablebythesocialinstincts，whichbindmentogether。Nosocietycouldeverbeweldedintoawholeby’force’alone。ThisistheUtilitarianfallacyofexplaininglawby’sanctions，’andleavingthe’sanctions’toexplainthemselves。ButtheargumentencouragesMilltotreatofallinequalityasunjustbecauseimposedbyforce。The’onlyschoolofgenuinemoralsentiment，’hesays，’issocietybetweenequals。’Letusrathersaythatinequalitiesareunjustwhichrestuponforcealone。Everyschoolofmoralityorofthoughtimpliessubordination，butasubordinationdesirableonlywhenbaseduponrealsuperiority。Thequestionthenbecomeswhethertheexistingrelationsofthesexescorrespondtosomeessentialdifferenceorarecreatedbysheerforce。
HerewehaveassumptionscharacteristicofMill’swholelogicalmethod；and，especially，thecuriousoscillationbetweenabsolutelawsandindefinitemodifiability。Hisdoctrineof’naturalkinds’supposedthattworaceswereeitherdividedbyanimpassablegulf，orweredividedonlybyaccidentalorsuperficialdifferences。Heprotestsagainsttheexplanationofnationaldifferencesbyracecharacteristics。TosaythattheIrisharenaturallylazy，ortheNegroesnaturallystupid，istomakeashortapologyforoppressionandforslavery。Undoubtedlyitiswrong，asitiscontrarytoallempiricalreasoning，toassumeafundamentaldifference；andmorallywrongtofoundupontheassumptionanapologyformaintainingcasteandprivilege。
Butneitherisitlegitimatetoassumethatthedifferencesarenegligible。The’accidentofcolour’hasbeenmadeapretextforanabominableinstitution。Butwehavenorighttotheaprioriassumptionthatcolourisamereaccident。ItmayuponMill’sownmethodbeanindicationofradicalandfar-reachingdifferences。
HowfartheNegrodiffersfromthewhiteman，whetherheisintellectuallyequaloronawhollylowerplane，isaquestionoffacttobedecidedbyexperience。Mill’srefusaltoacceptonedoctrinepassesimperceptiblyintoanequallyunfoundedacceptanceofitscontradictory。Theprocessisshownbythedoctrinetowhich，aswehaveseen，heattachedsomuchimportance，thatpoliticalsciencemustbedeductive，becausetheeffectoftheconjoinedcausesisthesumoftheeffectsoftheseparatecauses。Whentwomenacttogether，theeffectmaybeinferredfromputtingtogetherthemotivesofeach。’Allphenomenaofsociety，’heinfers，’arephenomenaofhumannaturegeneratedbytheactionofoutwardcircumstancesuponmassesofhumanbeings。’45*Wecanthereforededucescientificlawsinsociologyasinastronomy。Thistacitlyassumesthatman，likemolecule，representsaconstantunit，andthusintroducesthedefactoequalityofhumanbeings，fromwhichitisaninevitablesteptotheequalityofrights。Thesounddoctrinethatwecanonlylearnbyexperiencewhatarethedifferencesbetweenmenbecomesthedoctrinethatalldifferencesaresuperficial，andthereforethemanalwaysthesame。Thedoctrinebecomesaudaciouswhen’man’istakentoinclude’woman。’Hespeaksofthe’accidentofsex’andthe’accidentofcolour’asequallyunjustgroundsforpoliticaldistinctions。46*Thedifferencebetweenmenandwomen，WhitesandNegroes，is’accidental，’thatis，apparentlyremovablebysomechangeof’outwardcircumstances。’
Mill，indeed，doesnotadmitthatheisbeggingthequestion。
Heguardshimselfcarefullyagainstbeggingthequestioneitherway，47*thoughhethinksapparentlythattheburthenofproofisuponthosewhoassertanaturaldifference。Accordinglyheurgesthattheso-called’natureofwomen’is’aneminentlyartificialthing’；aresultof’hothousecultivation’carriedonforthebenefitoftheirmasters。48*Heafterwards49*
endeavourstoshowthateventhe’leastcontestabledifferences’
betweenthesexesaresuchasmay’verywellhavebeenproducedmerelybycircumstanceswithoutanydifferencesofnaturalcapacity。’What，oneasks，canthe’circumstancesmean？
Psychology，ashetrulysays，cantelluslittle；butphysiologycertainlyseemstosuggestadifferenceimpliedinthewholeorganisationandaffectingeverymentaland，physicalcharacteristic。Itisnot，apparently，acaseoftwootherwiseequalbeingsuponwhichdifferentqualitieshavebeensuperimposed，butofaradicaldistinction，totallyinconsistentwithanypresumptionofequality。50*Whenwearetoldthatthelegalinequalityisan’isolatedfact’——a’solitarybreachofwhathasbecomeafundamentallawofhumaninstitutions’51*——
thereplyisobvious。Thedistinctionofthesexesissurelyan’isolatedfact，’soradicalor’natural’thatitisnowonderthatitshouldhaveuniquerecognitioninallhumaninstitutions。
Millhas，indeed，afurtheranswer。Ifnaturedisqualifieswomenforcertainfunctions，whydisqualifythembylaw？Leaveeverythingtofreecompetition，andeachmanorwomanwillgowhereheorsheismostfitted。Abolish，briefly，allpoliticalandsocialdistinctions，andthingswillrightthemselves。If’inequality’isdueto’force，’andthedifferencebetweenmenandwomenbe’artificial，’theargumentisplausible。Butifthedifferencebe，assurelyitis，’natural，’and’force’inthesenseofmeremuscularstrength，onlyonefactorinthegrowthofinstitutions，theremovalofinequalitiesmayimplyneglectofessentialfacts。Heisattackingthemostfundamentalconditionoftheexistingsocialorder。ThereallyvitalpointisthebearingofMill’sargumentuponmarriageandthefamily。Hethinks52*thatthefullquestionofdivorceis’foreigntohispurpose’；and，infact，seemstobealittleshyofwhatisreallythecriticalpoint。Heholds，indeed，thatthefamilyisa’schoolofdespotism，’53*orwouldbeso，ifmenwerenotgenerallybetterthantheirlaws。Admittingthatthelawretainstracesofthebarbarismwhichregardedwivesasslaves，thequestionremainswhethertheinstitutionitselfistobecondemnedasdependentupon’force。’Wouldnotthe’equality’
betweenpersonsnaturallyunequalleadtogreaterinsteadoflessdespotism？If，asamatteroffact，womenareweakerthanmen，mightnotlibertymeanmorepowertothestrongest？Permissiontothehusbandtodesertthewifeatwillmightbetomakehermoredependentinfactthoughfreerinlaw。Whatevertheoriginoftheinstitutionofmarriage，itmaynowinvolve，notthebondagebutanessentialprotectionoftheweakestparty。ThisisthesideoftheargumenttowhichMillturnsadeafear。Wearetoneglectthemostconspicuousoffactsbecauseitmaybe’artificial’ordueto’circumstances，’andassumethatfreecompetitionwillbeaninfalliblesubstituteforasystemwhichaffectsthemostvitalpartofthewholesocialorganism。Toassumeexistingdifferencestobeincapableofmodificationisdoubtlesswrong；
buttotreatthematonceasnon-existentisatleastaudacious。
Finally，theolddifficultyrecursinastartlingshape。Ifdifferencesaretodisappearandthecharacteristicsofmenandwomentobecomeindistinguishable，shouldwenotbeencouraginga’levelling’morethoroughgoingthananywhichcanresultfrompoliticaldemocracy？
VII。THESELF-PROTECTIONPRINCIPLE
Thesespecialapplicationsraisethequestion：Whatistheinterpretationofhisgeneralprinciple？’Self-protection’istheonlyjustificationforsocialinterference。Whereaman’sconductaffectshimselfalonesocietyshouldnot’interfere’54*bylegislation。Doesthisimplythatwemustnotinterferebythepressureofpublicopinion？Wemay，asMillreplies，approveordisapprove，butsolongasamandoesnotinfringeourrights，wemustleavehimtothe’naturaland，asitwere，thespontaneousconsequencesofhisfaults。’Wemaydislikeandevenabhoranti-social’dispositions’——crueltyandtreachery——butself-regardingfaultsandthecorrespondingdispositionsarenotsubjectsof’moralreprobation。’Amanisnotaccountabletohisfellowcreaturesforprudenceor’self-respect。’55*Millanticipatestheobviousobjection。Noconductissimply’self-regarding。’’Nooneisanentirelyisolatedbeing’；andinjuriestomyselfdisqualifymeforservicetoothers。
’Self-regarding’vices，ashisopponentissupposedtourge，arealsosociallymischievous；andwemustsurelybeentitledtoassumethattheexperienceoftheracehasestablishedsomemoralrulessufficientlytoactuponthem，howeverdesirouswemaybetoallowof’newandoriginalexperimentsinliving。’56*Mill’sreplyisthatweshouldpunishnotthefaultitselfbuttheinjuriestootherswhichresult。WehangGeorgeBarnwellformurderinghisuncle，whetherhedidittogetmoneyforhismistressortosetupinbusiness。Weshouldnotpunishhim，itisimplied，forkeepingamistress；butweshouldpunishthemurder，whateverthemotive。Thecriminallawyer，nodoubt，treatsBarnwelluponthisprinciple。Butcanitbemorallyapplicable？Milladmitsfullythatself-regardingqualitiesmayberightfullypraisedandblamedWemaythinkamanafool，alazy，useless，sensualwretch：wemay，andareevenboundto，tellhimsofrankly，avoidhissociety，andwarnotherstoavoidhim。Myjudgmentofamanisnotajudgmentofhisseparatequalitiesbutofthewholehumanbeing。IdisapproveofGeorgeBarnwellhimself，notsimplyhisgreedinessorhisviciouspropensities。Ithinkamanbadindifferentdegreesifheisreadytomurderhisuncle，whetherfromlustorgreedorevenwithaviewtoacharitableuseoftheplunder。Thehatefulthingisthecharacteritselfwhich，undercertainconditions，leadstomurder。Asincludingprudence，itmaybesimplyneutralorrespectable；asimplyingvice，disgusting；andasimplyingcruelty，hateful。Still，Idonotcondemntheabstractqualities——interestinoneself，orsexualpassionorevenantipathy