Title of the Assignment

If John Stuart Mill and Georg Hegel were both to answer the question “What makes a good society?”, which one in your view would give the best reply? Give reasons for your choice from a Christian perspective

Commentary

This was part of my Take Home Exam – have a read of my commentary in the article called Ockham and Aquinas. It was three 1000 word essays to be written in a week on philosophical matters and this one dealt with my favourite (not) philospher, Georg Hegel. Not a fan and find him quite impenetrable for the most part. It probably reflected in my lower mark for this section at 74%. The lecturer was fairly complimentary, but in truth, I struggled with the Hegel part – understanding Mill a bit better.

Hegel and Mill

The principle of Utility developed by Jeremy Bentham and then further refined by Mill holds to a standard of the greatest total happiness of all beings capable of happiness, so that a “good society” is one where the greatest happiness is enjoyed by all of those capable of happiness.[1]  His governing principle is that happiness is the sole human end.[2]  Justice fits within this framework and within society as a claim we have on fellow creatures to join in making safe for us the foundations of our existence as a form of general utility.[3]  Therefore, humans have a right to pursue their own goals as long as this pursuit does not infringe upon the rights of other members of society.[4]  He defends this principle on the grounds that it allows moral development of culture and character without exercising power over others for their own good.[5] 

Dan Threet notes that in “On Liberty”, Mill defends a principle that limits how collective opinion interferes with individual independence where that collective opinion includes law and social pressure.[6]  Threet says that Mill was interested in a proper limit of authority of society over individuals, over and above the limits of State authority.[7]  The happiness motive, rarely arrived at if directly pursued, and within a framework of benevolence and sympathy, is grounded in its state of desirability.[8]  Happiness lies in the satisfaction of one’s desires and therefore, liberty in a free society is the liberty to satisfy desires.[9]  Therefore, John Stuart Mill would argue that a good society is one in which individuals have the right and freedom to pursue their desires without hinderance by the State or society at large save where that pursuit would hinder others in their pursuit of their desires.

In the Philosophy of the Spirit, Hegel deals with psychological, social and cultural forms of reality.[10]  Hegel posits that it is “not a metaphor to speak of Reason pervading the world; it is a literal and fundamental truth.  … there are rational principles, or universal unchangeable laws that govern the world.”[11]  He argues that humans may be no different from animals at the start, but that they develop into free, self-aware, agents.[12]  He also asserts that philosophy expresses spirit more adequately than religion can but religion has a more decisive influence on the formation of how we relate to others, society and politics.[13]  He saw religion as having a cohesive effect on society where that society has been fragmented and transformed by the interrelation of the economy, politics and intellectual and social effects.[14] This was against the backdrop of the fragmentation brought by the French Revolution and even the Enlightenment.[15]  Hegel’s interests therefore lay in social cohesion and the social contract within which, individual freedom exists but is subject to the broader concerns of a self-regulating society exemplified in religion.[16]

Hegel’s view was that a Volksreligion or civil religion, based in reason, and intellectually defensible, should permeate and regulate society, shaping society’s view of itself without becoming a theocracy.[17]  This position shifted later to a more idealist philosophy where intellect and reason exemplified in philosophy regulate society and the individuals in it without completely discarding religion which he wished to “give it its due” in supporting social cohesion.[18]

Fundamentally, Mill’s concept of a “Good Society” could be considered hedonistic with a guiding principle of freedom for individuals, unfettered by any higher considerations other than a concept of not hurting others.  Hegel’s concept of a “Good Society” was concerned with a regulated society where individual freedom is practiced but guided by a civil “religion” or philosophy aimed at social cohesion. 

Whilst both approaches are appealing to a Christian, Mill’s because of the freedom of an individual to act according to their own conscience and perceptions of happiness as a servant of God, Hegel because the society is regulated according to “religious” or philosophical principles, both have significant flaws.  The pursuit of happiness individually, potentially leads to chaos at least at some level.  Who regulates or limits this pursuit of happiness, if it does actually impinge on the greater good of society, and who determines that one’s pursuit is actually impinging on another’s happiness? How is benevolence and sympathy defined?  Can society actually function in this way without descending into an “every man for himself” mentality? 

On the other hand, did Hegel really find a Volksreligion that met his criteria of being reason based and intellectually defensible?  Where is the space for individual conscience in this?  What are the limits of the religion in regulating society and can such a religion, function without unduly limiting the freedom of an individual to worship unimpeded by the State or Society?  Scripture abounds with examples where humans have been incapable of self-regulating and if free to pursue happiness without concern for higher principles, descend into very dark places.  Consider the cycle of the Judges where there was no king in Israel and every man did that which was good in his own eyes (Judges 21:25) and compare this with the depravity depicted in the episode of the Levite and his concubine (Judges 19-21). 

Mill strives to circumvent this with the caveat around the pursuit of happiness so long as it does not impinge on another’s individual pursuit of happiness.  This then implies a regulation on the pursuit of happiness that must be exercised by someone.  On the other hand, Hegel was not blind to the corruption of the Catholic Church which led to the Reformation.  Does the individual get raised into a higher state by the Church or does the Church match its character to the individuals in the populace that it seeks to bind with common morals and ethics?

Mill’s encouragement of individual freedom perhaps matches more modern thinking and as such is appealing to a modern reader.  Hegel has enduring appeal for many Christians as well, desiring a society regulated by religious sensibilities.  Ultimately, from a Christian perspective, the appeal of individual engagement with God, untrammelled by a corruptible institution such as “Civil Religion” would probably appeal to a modern Christian despite the potential for chaos inherent in Mill’s approach.  Self-regulation of the individual based in a personal relationship with God seems preferable to submission to a religion that according to Hegel must rely on human reason and intellectual defensibility.  This presupposes that each individual’s pursuit of happiness understands and engages with God as the core of happiness.

---

[1] Craig, Routledge, 573.

[2] Craig, Routledge, 574.

[3] Craig, Routledge, 574.

[4] Craig, Routledge, 574.

[5] Craig, Routledge, 574.

[6] Dan Threet, “Mill’s Social Pressure Puzzle,” Social Theory & Practice 44.4 (2018): 539, https://doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract201872743.

[7] Threet, “Social,” 539–40.

[8] Roger Scruton, A Short History of Modern Philosophy: From Descartes to Wittgenstein, 2nd Edition. (New York, USA: Routledge, 1995), 238–39.

[9] Scruton, History, 241.

[10] Craig, Routledge, 337.

[11] quoted in G Scott Davis, “THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF DEMOCRACY: Molly Farneth, Hegel’s Social Ethics: Religion, Conflict, and Rituals of Reconciliation,” Journal of Religious Ethics 48.1 (2020): 153.

[12] Davis, “Phenomenology,” 156.

[13] Davis, “Phenomenology,” 157.

[14] Davis, “Phenomenology,” 157; Thomas A Lewis, “Religion, Reconciliation, and Modern Society: The Shifting Conclusions of Hegel’s Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion,” Harvard Theological Review 106.1 (2013): 37.

[15] Lewis, “Religion,” 41.

[16] Scruton, History, 213; Davis, “Phenomenology,” 158.

[17] Lewis, “Religion,” 42.

[18] Lewis, “Religion,” 43.

Note, once again that the Works Cited section refers to the broader list of works I have used across the three essays.

Works Cited

Antognazza, Maria Rose. “Intuitive Cognition in the Latin Medieval Tradition.” Philosophy 31.4 (2023): 675–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/09608788.2022.2161467.

Chatraw, Joshua D., and Mark D Allen. Apologetics at the Cross: An Introduction for Christian Witnesses. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2018.

Craig, Edward, ed. Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London, UK: Routledge, 2000.

Davis, G Scott. “THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF DEMOCRACY: Molly Farneth, Hegel’s Social Ethics: Religion, Conflict, and Rituals of Reconciliation.” Journal of Religious Ethics 48.1 (2020): 152–71.

Howe, Richard G. “Defending the Handmaid: How Theology Needs Philosophy.” Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry 21.1 (2024): 99–111. https://www.nobts.edu/baptist-center-theology/.

Lewis, Thomas A. “Religion, Reconciliation, and Modern Society: The Shifting Conclusions of Hegel’s Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion.” Harvard Theological Review 106.1 (2013): 37–60.

Lucas, Dick. The Message of Colossians and Philemon: Fullness and Freedom. The Bible Speaks Today. Edited by John Stott. Leicester, UK: Inter-Varsity Press, 2003.

Maritz, Daniel J. “By Scripture and Plain Reason: A Historical Retrieval of the Relationship between Theology and Philosophy to Better Engage with Present-Day Secularism.” In Die Skriflig 57.1 (2023): 1–14. https://www.doi.org/10.4102/ids.v57i1.2908.

McGrath, Alister E. Christian Apologetics: An Introduction. Hoboken NJ USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2024.

Owens, Joseph. “Human Reason and the Moral Order in Aquinas.” Studia 28.1 (1990): 155–73.

Schumacher, Lydia. “The History and Future of Philosophy’s Relationship with Theology.” International Journal of Philosophy and Theology 83.5 (2022): 318–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/21692327.2022.2137563.

Scruton, Roger. A Short History of Modern Philosophy: From Descartes to Wittgenstein. 2nd Edition. New York, USA: Routledge, 1995.

Tarnas, Richard. The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas That Have Shaped Our World View. 1 online resource (544 pages) vols. New York: Ballantine Books, 2011. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=745253.

Threet, Dan. “Mill’s Social Pressure Puzzle.” Social Theory & Practice 44.4 (2018): 539–65. https://doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract201872743.

Woo, B Hoon. “The Understanding of Gisbertus Voetius and Rene Descartes on the Relationship of Faith and Reason, and Theology and Philosophy.” The Westminster Theological Journal 75.1 (2013): 45–63.

Works Consulted

Boyd, Craig A. and Don Thorsen. Christian Ethics and Moral Philosophy: An Introduction to Issues and Approaches. Grand Rapids Michigan: Baker Academic (2018)

Giertych, Wojciech. “Aquinas on Conscience” Salesianum 86.3 (2024): 408-445. 0036-3502.

Hastings, Ross. Substitution or Satisfaction?: Commentary by Douglas Farrow on the Atonement Theology of Aquinas and Anselm in Theological Negotiations. Crux: A Quarterly Journal of Christian Thought and Opinion 55.2 (2019): 15-23 0011-2186

Loizides, Antis. “Mill on Happiness: A question of method” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 22.2 (2014): 302-321 0960-8788

McDermott, Timothy. Beginnings and Ends: Some Thoughts On Thomas Aquinas, Virtue and Emotions. Studies in Christian Ethics 12.1 (1999): 35-47 10.1177/095394689901200105

Philp, Mark and Georgios Varouxakis. Happiness and Utility: Essays Presented to Frederick Rosen. London, UK: UCL Press (2019

Slotemaker, John Thomas. Ontology, Theology and the Eucharist: Thomas Aquinas and William of Ockham. The St Anselm Journal 9.2 (2014): 1-20 1545-3367