Mill excludes ‘backward’ nations and children
from his prescription of rights. Why?
Mill argues that the right of liberty doesn’t
apply to “backward” nations or children because liberty is only useful (and liberty has to be useful for Mill, since he holds utilitarian views) when
people are capable of learning from discussion, and he thinks this isn’t
possible for these categories of people. In essence, he likens these “backward”
nations to children because, according to him, they cannot effectively
self-govern. Obviously, this strikes me as condescending and probably racist,
as it doubts the mental faculties of people from less developed countries. Mill’s
use of the term “backward” certainly betrays that he is not a cultural
relativist, and that he thinks that all countries should be judged using a
Western standard.
I think Ana raises an important point. While Mill makes a good argument for the necessity of discussion and dialogue in all matters, especially those that are political. From a utilitarian and practical perspective, it makes sense to consider those who cannot participate in that process as being in a special class. Mill writes, "Those who are still in a state to require being taken care of by others, must be protected against their own actions as well as against external injury." For children, who are necessarily not fully developed physically and mentally, such protection makes sense and is reflected in laws concerning ages of consent, child labor and such. However, it is condescending to place fully developed individuals in such a protected class.
ReplyDeleteFor example, women and children were once protected under US law as a protected class when it came to property and labor concerns. This was eventually changed because the reasoning was that it was implicitly condescending and inaccurate to place fully developed women in the same class as still developing minors.