how can mill say that “there is no parity between the feeling of a person for his own opinion, and the feeling of another who is offended at his holding it; no more than between the desire of a thief to take a purse, and the desire of the right owner to keep it”? while he is a utilitarian who cares about everyone's desires?
Tulane? Ha.
I don't understand this quote either.
John Stuart Mill, a prominent philosopher and proponent of utilitarianism, argued that there is no moral equivalence between the feeling of a person for his own opinion and another person who is offended by it. Despite being a utilitarian, Mill held that individual liberties and freedom of thought were of utmost importance.
To understand Mill's argument, it's important to first grasp the fundamental principles of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory that states that actions should be chosen based on their ability to produce the greatest happiness or well-being for the greatest number of people. In other words, utilitarianism aims to maximize overall happiness or utility.
However, Mill acknowledged that individuals have different desires, opinions, and preferences. While he believed in prioritizing the general utility, he also recognized the value of individualism and freedom of expression. This is where his statement about the disparity between personal opinion and offense comes into play.
In Mill's view, a person's attachment to their own opinions is inherently different from another person's negative emotional response to those opinions. The former is simply an expression of one's own beliefs and desires, while the latter suggests an attempt to suppress or limit someone else's freedom of thought. Mill valued the freedom of opinion and expression, even if they conflicted with the desires or sensitivities of others.
It's crucial to remember that Mill's utilitarianism is not solely focused on desires. While desires are a part of utilitarian calculation, Mill argued that individual liberties and the right to hold and express personal opinions should be respected and protected. This is because, in his view, allowing diverse beliefs and free expression ultimately contributes to the overall well-being and progress of society as a whole.