Abstract

This article investigates the exclusion of “consumption” from John Stuart Mill’s definition of political economy (1836). Unlike production and distribution, consumption is not an economic activity that Mill included in the theoretical framework of the science of political economy. Consumption could not be subject to a law of political economy and could only be a law of human enjoyment. This article shows that although Mill understood the desire to consume and observed its practice in the Victorian society of the 19^th century, he didn’t think of consumption as a productive activity that could lead to the accumulation of wealth. The article argues that consumption for Mill belongs to the realm of art, which he distinguishes from scientific knowledge, and which explains its exclusion from the science of political economy. More specifically, the article shows that consumption belongs to domestic economy, which according to Mill is an art. The purpose of every art is the promotion of happiness, the article hence argues that consumption was part of Mill’s moral theory of happiness influenced by Aristotle rather than the science of political economy, which dealt with the production and distribution of wealth.

摘要

本文探讨了约翰·斯图尔特·密尔 (John Stuart Mill) 的政治经济学定义 (1836) 中对“消费”的排除。与生产和分配不同，消费并不是穆勒纳入政治经济学理论框架的经济活动。消费不能服从政治经济规律，而只能是人类享受的规律。本文表明，尽管密尔了解消费欲望并观察了 19 世纪维多利亚社会的消费实践^，二十世纪以来，他并不认为消费是一种可以导致财富积累的生产活动。文章认为，密尔认为消费属于艺术领域，他将艺术领域与科学知识区分开来，这也解释了艺术被排除在政治经济学之外的原因。更具体地说，文章表明消费属于国内经济，密尔认为消费是一门艺术。每种艺术的目的都是促进幸福，因此文章认为，消费是受亚里士多德影响的密尔幸福道德理论的一部分，而不是涉及财富生产和分配的政治经济学科学。