protect his property with the help of social or legal sanctions. Confidence in such protection is security - the most vital interest of the individual, which must be guaranteed by the state and society. By giving one specific blow for a blow and repelling any attack on a person carried out by himself, security is created, supported by legal and social sanctions. And according to Mill, the fair understanding is livability was formed in humanity, although on the basis of feeling revenge and self-defense, but it crystallized and grew stronger, with the help of the mentioned sankshas. “Only they could act in an educational way on the intellectual nature of the individual, ennobling and, so to speak, formalizing the animal feeling of revenge, contrasting it with the norms of the law and the condemnation of the social self.
Such education, which in Mill’s eyes is of enormous importance, quite possibly increases the individual’s ability to rational egoism and a comprehensive feeling of sympathy, which for utilitarians serves as a kind of philosopher’s stone. By touching it, the feeling of revenge turns into a complex and sublime sense of justice, which applies to all people equally. Mill adopted Bentham's ariometic rule of counting each individual as a unit in the distribution of all individual claims in relation to society on the basis of justice. Its concept includes the idea of equality. But justice, with all its consequences, in the end, in Mill’s opinion, still needs the criterion of utility, and Mill, in no case, sees in it the concept of its registration. If you ask, Mill says, on what basis should society guarantee individuals the individual right of possession, then he recognizes the benefit of all as the only basis.
U"
Thus, personal and social benefit are two points between which, just like in Bentham, all of Mill’s subtle and instead of broad empirical generalizations develop, taking the form of rational concepts, the content of which is obtained, however, with the help of induction. Critics have repeatedly pointed out that these Millian concepts come close to the intuitive school. But it is necessary to remember that if Mill talks about constancy, about debts, etc., then he means by them the same results of association that we talked about. Sovereignty and duty, like other moral feelings, are not feelings innate to us, but developed in the past, exercised by the will and strengthened by habit. So, gradually, moving away from the metaphysical foundations and prerequisites, fill D.S. Mill’s understanding of the individual with moral and legal content, obtained according to his opinion, empirically. But, as we will see below, the author does not avoid acbomatic references to nature, reminiscent of the racialism of the previous VFK. In particular, references to imfut are significant as fundamental principles during the transition in Mill from individual morality 3) and from the centrifugal egoistic properties of the individual, to his pentrostimate social properties, to social morality and political theory.
But first, let us note once again the point reached by Mill in understanding the individual.
Defining the dignity of the individual, his individual dignity, Kant, and after him V. Humboldt, put forward the position: man is a man of his own. The father of utilitarianism, Bentham, did not formally lose sight of the importance of the human personality in the sense that the principle of his social-political philosopher was, on the one hand, recognizing each individual as an equal participant in the maximization of happiness;
1) Wed. the term proposed by Wundt for this branch: “characteropia.”