Description
What our world would have looked like had European Imperialism unfolded after the publication of Mill’s On Liberty rather than after the publication of Hobbes Leviathan.
Perhaps an equally fruitful though experiment would be to probe the difference between. Liberalism and what Mill calls “enlightened despotism,” and the spatial/geographical deployment of both. In other words, rather than choosing between Hobbesian and Millian political universes, is the world not composed of pockets of each—and often under the same governmental regime?
While Hobbes is an authoritarian thinker and Mill a liberal democratic thinker, they both share a pessimistic view of human nature and both place some form of intellectual development—reason (Hobbes) and civilization (Mill)—at the center of their theories. Drawing upon Mill, Hobbes, Leopold II, and Conrad, explain the role of reason and civilization in the organization of state and civil violence within authoritarianism and liberalism, as well as within the colonial project. Is political philosopher Richard Rorty correct to claim that Mill’s liberalism produces a net reduction in human suffering?
Answer the question above. This is a sufficiently capacious question to merit a 10-15 page paper (12pt font, double spaced, no extra space between paragraphs, you title page does not count as a page). I expect you to make a cogent argument explaining the roles played by reason and civilization in organizing violence and that argument must be given textual support.