John Stuart Mill was the other utilitarian philosopher
whose work I have read these past two weeks. He wrote On Liberty in 1859, long after Bentham’s 1780 publication of Principles of Morals and Legislation. The
time period, as well as significant differences in thought, are evident in a
comparison of the two works.
As I have previously written, Bentham established
utilitarian principles from the ground up, focusing on the careful calculus of
comparing individuals’ pleasures and pains. Mill, on the other hand, focuses
primarily on rights, implying the existence of some of the principles Bentham
established.
Mill’s version of utilitarianism requires that
individuals have the rights of free speech, free thought, and, for the most
part, free action. Unless such acts might harm someone else, Mill contends a
person should be as free in action as they are in opinion.
So what do these ideas have to do with redistricting?
Mill’s version of utilitarianism lends yet another lens through which to
analyze redistricting systems. A system that fails to give citizens equality in
the strength of their votes would restrict their voices, and therefore would be
deemed unacceptable under this philosophical framework. This disallows any
gerrymandering, which inherently would reduce the strength of some citizens’
votes.
In the context of modern politics, how do you think these could apply outside of redistricting? I believe that is one if the areas that this is most applicable but many different parts of politics could be seen as restricting the voice of people.
ReplyDeleteGood question. This same political theory could easily be applied to the influence of money in politics, voter id laws, voting on Tuesdays, not allowing felons to vote, and having a two-party system, among other things. Redistricting, however, may be the most relevant issue of this type right now.
ReplyDelete