John Stuart Mill

Record year1843

summaryOrganizes language, evidence, induction, and causal inquiry into a unified methodological system, and specifies four comparative procedures for isolating causal laws along with their background condition limitations.

M rationaleSEP confirms the inductive system and the four methods section by section, while also noting disputes over induction’s self-support, deductive cognition, and background conditions; M6.1 is assigned for this independent interdisciplinary methodological system, with its limitations incorporated into the boundary.

attribution rationaleMill 0.43, James Mill 0.08, Bentham 0.04, other earlier traditions 0.20, publishing team 0.07, unresolved 0.18.

overlap boundaryThe 1843 *A System of Logic*’s empiricist epistemology, foundations of induction, Methods of Agreement, Difference, Residues, and Concomitant Variation for seeking causal connections, and its argument for extending those methods to social science; modern statistical causation, experimental design, and later scientific achievements are excluded. SEP states that Harriet Taylor had little involvement in this book, so no share is forcibly assigned to her.

Evidence gapsRevisions across editions and specific source borrowings have not been verified item by item; the differences between the four methods and predecessors such as Herschel still require specialized calibration in the history of methodology.

Record year1859

summaryBrings coercion by the state and by social opinion into a single analysis, limits intervention through the harm principle, and systematically argues for the epistemic value of error, partial truth, and experiments in individuality.

M rationaleThe first chapter and SEP §§4.5–4.6 confirm the three components of the harm principle, freedom of discussion, and individuality; M6.2 is assigned for this systematic argument across law, politics, and ethics. Harriet’s collaboration and the “civilized society” exception both enter directly into the attribution budget and net boundary.

attribution rationaleMill 0.38, Harriet 0.23, other earlier traditions 0.16, original publication and debate team 0.07, unresolved 0.16.

overlap boundaryThe complete 1859 *On Liberty* argument concerning the limits of society’s power over the individual, freedom of thought and discussion, individuality, and freedom of action; it does not claim modern constitutions, speech-platform rules, court precedents, or social movements.

Evidence gapsThe division between Mill’s and Harriet’s manuscript contributions has not yet been verified, and the individual shares are conservative candidates; the colonial application history of the civilization-stage exception has not been established.

Record year1848

summaryWithin classical production analysis, emphasizes the variability of distribution institutions and links economic laws with social institutions, reform, and individual development.

M rationaleThe first-edition holding and SEP/Taylor collaboration entries support the main text and the dispute over collaboration; M5.9 is assigned for a comprehensive economic–institutional treatise, without amplification from textbook dissemination or policy scale.

attribution rationaleMill 0.39, Harriet 0.12, James 0.05, Ricardo 0.07, other earlier traditions 0.13, publication and materials 0.07, unresolved 0.17.

overlap boundaryFrom 1848 onward, *Principles of Political Economy* offers an economic–social philosophical synthesis of production, distribution, economic progress, property, and cooperative forms, with revisions across editions; it does not claim later free-market, welfare, socialist, cooperative, or economic-policy outcomes.

Evidence gapsProduction/distribution propositions and edition differences were not verified volume by volume; the chapters on colonialism and civilizational hierarchy still require a dedicated net-boundary review.

Record year1869

summaryApplies associationist psychology to rebut the alleged 'natural' differences in women's abilities, systematically linking legal equality across marriage, education, occupation, and political representation.

M rationaleThe Oxford original text and SEP §4.4 explicitly support full equality, the formation of gender differences by upbringing, marital power, and arguments for suffrage; M6.0 is assigned for this systematic equality argument across law, family, and politics, while retaining high shares for Harriet and earlier women thinkers.

attribution rationaleMill 0.34, Harriet 0.22, earlier women’s-rights thought 0.18, advocacy and publishing team 0.11, unresolved 0.15.

overlap boundaryArguments in *The Subjection of Women* against legal subordination, unequal marital power, and exclusion from education and occupations, together with Mill’s documented advocacy for women’s suffrage during his parliamentary tenure; it does not claim later suffrage legislation, equality laws, or the entire feminist movement.

Evidence gapsThe paragraph-by-paragraph division of labor between Harriet and Mill, Helen Taylor’s editing, and petition organizers have not yet been distinguished; the concrete procedural delivery of parliamentary initiatives requires original Hansard records before the service residual can be further estimated.

Record year1861

summaryAdds quality and experienced judges to a quantitative pleasure framework, and attempts to explain how virtue, character, and justice enter utilitarian ethics.

M rationaleSEP confirms the substance of the arguments on the quality of pleasure, character, and justice, while noting both the unspecified quality–quantity tradeoff and the dispute over whether it departs from hedonism; M5.8 is assigned for an independent revision of ethical theory.

attribution rationaleMill 0.42, Bentham 0.15, James 0.07, Harriet 0.07, other earlier traditions 0.12, publication 0.05, unresolved 0.12.

overlap boundaryThe 1861 serialization and 1863 book *Utilitarianism* defend the principle of utility, the quality of pleasure, character, virtue, and justice; it does not claim all consequentialist ethics, public-policy cost–benefit analysis, or later utilitarian schools.

Evidence gapsHarriet's specific share in this book lacks manuscript evidence; the theoretical gap in how to weigh quality/quantity of pleasure and minority rights is an inherent limitation of the work.

Record year1861

summaryPlaces the quality of government administration and the development of citizens’ capacities alongside one another as evaluation criteria, and argues for the institutional value of participation and minority opinion within representative government.

M rationaleChapters 2–3 and 8 of the original text support the dual standard of good government, popular sovereignty, and the argument for minority opinion; M5.8 is assigned for an institutional analysis system, while the net boundary is lowered because of unequal designs such as civilization stages, plural voting, and colonial exceptions.

attribution rationaleMill 0.42, James 0.07, Bentham 0.06, Tocqueville 0.06, other earlier traditions 0.14, publication 0.05, unresolved 0.20.

overlap boundaryThe 1861 *Considerations on Representative Government* arguments on standards of good government, the people’s ultimate sovereignty, the educative role of participation, minority opinion, and institutional fit; it does not claim modern democracy, implementation of proportional representation, parliamentary institutions, or colonial-administration outcomes.

Evidence gapsThe chapters on plural voting, colonial governance, and stages of civilization require a more complete net-boundary review. The specific transmission relationship with Hare's proportional representation scheme is not disaggregated.

Record year1865

summaryIn critiquing Hamilton, external objects are restated as repeatably realizable possibilities of sensation, and matter, mind, and cognitive limits are incorporated into a unified empiricist argument.

M rationaleSEP lists the book as one of Mill’s four most important works and, in §3.6, separately presents relativity of knowledge, permanent possibilities of sensation, and the problem of mind; M5.6 is assigned for an independent work of theoretical philosophy. SEP also notes that its naturalism and idealism may be incompatible, so the system’s completeness is not treated as established truth.

attribution rationaleMill 0.46, Hamilton 0.12, other empiricist and idealist traditions 0.18, publishing and polemical team 0.06, unresolved 0.18.

overlap boundaryThe 1865 *An Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy*: relativity of knowledge, the external world as “permanent possibilities of sensation,” continuity of mind, and the empiricist–idealist tension; it excludes the general inductive method of *A System of Logic*, later phenomenalism, and analytic philosophy as a whole.

Evidence gapsNot verified chapter-by-chapter for Mill's and Hamilton's specific quotations, rebuttals, and changes across editions; the differential between this theory and Berkeley, Hume, and later phenomenalism still requires dedicated history-of-philosophy calibration.