MR, J. S. MILL ON IMMORTALITY. [TO THE EDITOR OF
THE " SPEOTATOR.") Si,—In your paper of last Saturday you have inserted a letter from" G. S. B.," from which I take the following words :—" You might have reminded your readers of a similar admission in the posthumous essays of Mr, John Stuart Mill, in which the author speaks of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul as probably an illusion, although morally so valuable, that it is better to retain it. It is surely time that all this scientific shuffling and intel- lectual dishonesty—for it is nothing else—should be exposed and exploded." By all means let us expose shuffling and dishonesty, wherever we may find them, even should they lurk in a letter to the Spectator, and although when exposed we may discover nothing scientific about the one, or intellectual about the other. You were of course perfectly right not to remind your readers. of any such admission on the part of Mr. Mill, for the sufficient reason that he never made—nor could have made—any admission of the kind.
In his posthumous essay upon Theism, Mr. Mill inquires into the arguments for and against the immortality of the soul, and comes to the conclusion that while we can see no grounds for positive assurance or belief in immortality, he does see grounds which permit the hope. Thus he says (p. 210) :— "There is, therefore, no assurance whatever of a life after death on grounds of natural religion. But to any one who feels it conducive either to his satisfaction or to his usefulness to hope for a future state as a possibility, there is no hindrance to his indulging that hope. Appear- ances point to the existence of a Being who has great power over us— all the power implied in the creation of the Kosmos, or of its organised beings at least—and of whose goodness we have evidence, though not of its being his predominant attribute ; and as we do not know the limits either of his power or of his goodness, there is room to hope that both the one and the other may extend to granting us this gift, provided that it would be really beneficial to us. The same ground which permits the hope, warrants us in expecting that if there be a future life, it will be at least as good as the present, and will not be wanting in tho best feature of the present life, improvability by our own efforts.'
In a subsequent chapter (p. 244), Mr. Mill says :—
" It is now to be considered whether the indulgence of a hope' in a region of imagination merely, in which there is no prospect that any probable grounds of expectation will over be obtained, is irrational, and ought to be discouraged, as a departure from the rational principle of regulating our feelings, as well as opinions, strictly by evidence.
To me it seems that human life, small and confined as it is and as, considered merely in tho present, it is likely to remain, even when the progress of moral and material improvement may have freed It from the greater part of its present calamities, stands greatly in need of any wider range and greater height of aspiration for itself and its destination which the exercise of imagination can yield to it, without running counter to the evidence of fact ; and that it is a part of wisdom to make the most of any, even small, probabilities on this subject, which furnish imagination with any footing to support itself upon, And I am satisfied that the cultivation of such a tendency in the imagi- nation, provided it goes on pan i passe with the cultivation of severe reason, has no necessary tendency to pervert the judgment."
Finally, he concludes (p. 249) "On those principles, it appears to me that the indulgence of hope with regard to the government of the universe and the destiny of man after death, while we recognise as a clear truth that we have no ground for more than a hope, is legitimate and philosophically defensible. The beneficial effect of such a hope is far from trifling."
The object of this letter is not at all to enter upon the ques- tion of immortality, but to ask, had "G. S. B." read these passages when he brought his accusation of shuffling ? It would seem hardly possible, for he says that Mr. Mill speaks of im- mortality as probably an illusion—that is, as something almost dis- proved, almost distinctly false—and yet that Mr. Mill wished to retain this falsity because "morally so valuable I" Where does " G. S. B." find a shadow of excuse for these—illusions ? Or is it possible that he has never even read—or not read with any attention—the book upon which he founds his charges? At any rate, it is very difficult to misunderstand Mr. Mill, so anxious was he always to be clear, to be just, to keep back nothing, to examine both sides, to overstate nothing and to understate nothing, so sensitively honourable was his mind, so transparently honest his style. But these are common-places with respect to him. I am content to contrast the scrupulous accurateness of Mr. Mill with what appears of that quality in " Q. S. B."--I am,
Previous page
