This is a very select bibliography of other primary and secondary work relevant to the study of Mill’s moral and political philosophy. It is selective, because Mill scholarship is voluminous and my knowledge of it is limited. While it does include those works I have found especially interesting or useful, it is not intended to be comprehensive.

• Anderson, E., 1991, “John Stuart Mill and Experiments in Living,” reprinted in Lyons 1997: 123–48. (Scholar)
• Annas, J., 1977, “Mill and the Subjection of Women,”Philosophy, 52: 179–94. (Scholar)
• Archard, D., 1990, “Freedom Not to Be Free: The Case of the Slavery Contract in J.S. Mill’s On Liberty,” The Philosophical Quarterly, 40: 453–65. (Scholar)
• Arneson, R., 1979, “Mill’s Doubts about Freedom under Socialism,” in Copp 1979: 231–49. (Scholar)
• –––, 1980, “Mill versus Paternalism,”Ethics, 90: 470–89. (Scholar)
• –––, 1982, “Democracy and Liberty in Mill’s Theory of Government,” Journal of the History of Philosophy, 20: 43–64. (Scholar)
• –––, 1989, “Paternalism, Utility, and Fairness,” reprinted in Dworkin 1997: 83–114. (Scholar)
• Bain, A., 1882a, James Mill: A Biography, London: Thoemmes, 1995. (Scholar)
• –––, 1882b, John Stuart Mill: A Criticism with Personal Recollections, London: Longmans. (Scholar)
• Berger, F., 1984, Happiness, Justice and Freedom: The Moral and Political Philosophy of John Stuart Mill, Berkeley: University of California Press. (Scholar)
• Bogen, J. and D. Farrell, 1978, “Freedom and Happiness in Mill’s Defence of Liberty,” Philosophical Quarterly, 28: 325–28. (Scholar)
• Bradley, F.H., 1876, Ethical Studies, Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Scholar)
• Brink, D., 1992, “Mill’s Deliberative Utilitarianism,” Philosophy & Public Affairs, 21: 67–103. (Scholar)
• –––, 2001, “Millian Principles, Freedom of Expression, and Hate Speech,” Legal Theory, 7: 119–57. (Scholar)
• –––, 2003, Perfectionism and the Common Good: Themes in the Philosophy of T.H. Green, Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Scholar)
• –––, 2008, “Mill’s Liberal Principles and Freedom of Expression,” in Ten 2008, 40–61. (Scholar)
• –––, 2010, “Mill’s Ambivalence about Rights,” Boston University Law Review, 90: 1669–1704. (Scholar)
• –––, 2012, “Mill’s Ambivalence about Duty,” in Mill on Justice, L. Kahn (ed.), London: Palgrave. (Scholar)
• –––, 2013, Mill’s Progressive Principles, Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Scholar)
• –––, 2017, “Mill on Justice and Rights,” in A Companion to Mill, C. MacLeod and D. Miller (ed.), West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. (Scholar)
• Brown, D.G., 1972, “Mill on Liberty and Morality,” Philosophical Review, 81: 133–58. (Scholar)
• –––, 1973, “What is Mill’s Principle of Utility?” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 3: 1–12 and reprinted in Lyons 1997: 9–24. (Scholar)
• –––, 1974, “Mill’s Act-Utilitarianism,” Philosophical Quarterly, 24: 67–68 and reprinted in Lyons 1997: 25–28. (Scholar)
• Capaldi, N., 2004, John Stuart Mill: A Biography, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
• Clarke, P., 1978, Liberals and Social Democrats, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
• Collini, S., 1979, Liberalism and Sociology: L.T. Hobhouse and Political Argument in England 1880–1914, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
• Copp, D. (ed.), 1979, New Essays on John Stuart Mill and Utilitarianism, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Supp. Vol. V. (Scholar)
• Crisp, R., 1997, Mill on Utilitarianism, London: Routledge. (Scholar)
• Devlin, P., 1965, The Enforcement of Morals, Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Scholar)
• Donner, W., 1993, The Liberal Self: John Stuart Mill’s Moral and Political Philosophy, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. (Scholar)
• Dworkin, G., 1972, “Paternalism,” reprinted in Dworkin 1997: 61–82. (Scholar)
• ––– (ed.), 1997, Mill’s On Liberty: Critical Essays, Totowa, NJ: Roman and Littlefield. (Scholar)
• Dworkin, R., 1977, Taking Rights Seriously, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. (Scholar)
• Eggleston, B., D. Miller, and D. Weinstein (eds.), 2011, John Stuart Mill and the Art of Life, Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Scholar)
• Estlund, D, 2008, Democratic Authority, Princeton: Princeton University Press. (Scholar)
• Feinberg, J., 1984–88, The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law, 4 vols., New York: Oxford University Press. (Scholar)
• –––, 1985, Offense to Others, [vol. 2 of The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law], New York: Oxford University Press. (Scholar)
• Feldman, F., 2004, Pleasure and the Good Life, Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Scholar)
• Gray, J., 1983, Mill on Liberty: A Defence, London: Routledge. (Scholar)
• Green, T.H., 1883, Prolegomena to Ethics, D. Brink (ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003. (Scholar)
• Habibi, D., 2017, “Mill on Colonialism,” in A Companion to Mill, C. MacLeod and D. Miller (ed.), West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. (Scholar)
• Hall, E., 1949, “The ‘Proof’ of Utility in Bentham and Mill,” Ethics, 60: 1–18. (Scholar)
• Hare, R.M., 1981, Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Methods, and Point, Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Scholar)
• Hart, H.L.A., 1963, Law, Liberty, and Morality, Stanford: Stanford University Press. (Scholar)
• –––, 1982, Essays on Bentham, Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Scholar)
• Himmelfarb, G., 1974, On Liberty and Liberalism: The Case of John Stuart Mill, New York: Knopf. (Scholar)
• Hurka, T., 1993, Perfectionism, Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Scholar)
• Irwin, T., 2009, The Development of Ethics, vol. 3, Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Scholar)
• Jacobson, D., 2000, “Mill on Liberty, Speech, and the Free Society,” Philosophy & Public Affairs, 29: 276–309. (Scholar)
• –––, 2003, “J.S. Mill and the Diversity of Utilitarianism,” Philosophers’ Imprint, 3(2): 1–18. [Jacobson 2003 available online] (Scholar)
• Kymlicka, W., 1989, Liberalism, Community, and Culture, Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Scholar)
• Lewis, D., 1989, “Mill and Milquetoast,” reprinted in Dworkin 1997: 1–30. (Scholar)
• Lively, J. and J. Rees (eds.), 1978, Utilitarian Logic and Politics, Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Scholar)
• Lovett, F., 2008, “Mill on Consensual Domination,” in Ten 2008, 123–37. (Scholar)
• Lyons, D., 1965, The Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism, Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Scholar)
• –––, 1970, In the Interest of the Governed, Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Scholar)
• –––, 1977, “Human Rights and the General Welfare,” Philosophy & Public Affairs, 6: 113–29 and reprinted in Lyons 1997: 29–44. (Scholar)
• –––, 1980, “Utility as a Possible Ground of Rights,” Nous, 14: 17–28. (Scholar)
• –––, 1979, “Liberty and Harm to Others,” reprinted in Dworkin 1997: 115–36. (Scholar)
• –––, 1994, Rights, Welfare, and Mill’s Moral Theory, Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Scholar)
• ––– (ed.), 1997, Mill’s Utilitarianism: Critical Essays, Totowa, NJ: Roman and Littlefield. (Scholar)
• Macaulay, T.B., 1852, “Mill’s Essay on Government: Utilitarian Logic and Politics,” reprinted in Lively and Rees 1978: 97–130. (Scholar)
• MacLeod, C. and Miller, D, eds., 2017, A Companion to Mill, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. (Scholar)
• McCabe, H., 2017, “Harriet Taylor Mill,” in A Companion to Mill, ed. C. MacLeod and D. Miller, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. (Scholar)
• Millgram, E., 2000, “Mill’s Proof of the Principle of Utility,” Ethics, 110: 282–310. (Scholar)
• Mill, James, 1824, An Essay on Government, reprinted in Lively and Rees 1978, 53–95. (Scholar)
• Miller, D., 2010, J.S. Mill: Moral, Social, and Political Thought, Cambridge: Polity Press. (Scholar)
• –––, 2022, “Harriet Taylor Mill,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E. Zalta, URL = . (Scholar)
• Moore, G.E., 1903, Principia Ethica, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
• Nicholson, P., 1990, The Political Philosophy of the British Idealists, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
• –––, 1998, “The Reception and Early Reputation of Mill’s Political Thought,” in Skorupski 1998b: 464–96. (Scholar)
• Norcross, A., 2008, “A Scalar Approach to Utilitarianism,” in The Blackwell Guide to Mill’s Utilitarianism, H. West (ed.), Oxford: Blackwell. (Scholar)
• Nozick, R., 1974, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, New York: Basic Books. (Scholar)
• Okin, S., 1979, Women in Western Political Thought, Princeton: Princeton University Press. (Scholar)
• Packe, M.S.J., 1954, The Life of John Stuart Mill, London: Secker and Warburg. (Scholar)
• Rawls, J., 1955, “Two Concepts of Rules,” Philosophical Review, 64: 3–32. (Scholar)
• –––, 1971, A Theory of Justice, Harvard: Harvard University Press. (Scholar)
• –––, 1993, Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press. (Scholar)
• Riley, J., 1991, “One Very Simple Principle,” Utilitas, 3: 1–35. (Scholar)
• –––, 1993, “On Quantities and Qualities of Pleasure,” Utilitas, 5: 291–300. (Scholar)
• –––, 1998, Mill On Liberty, London: Routledge. (Scholar)
• –––, 1999, “Is Qualitative Hedonism Incoherent?” Utilitas, 11: 347–58. (Scholar)
• –––, 2003, “Interpreting Mill’s Qualitative Hedonism,” The Philosophical Quarterly, 53: 410–18. (Scholar)
• Rosen, F., 2013, Mill, Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Scholar)
• Ryan, A., 1988, The Philosophy of John Stuart Mill, 2^nd ed., London: Macmillan. (Scholar)
• –––, 1998, “Mill in a Liberal Landscape,” in Skorupski 1998b: 497–540. (Scholar)
• Saunders, B., 2010, “J.S. Mill’s Conception of Utility,” Utilitas, 22: 52–69. (Scholar)
• –––, 2016, “Reformulating Mill’s Harm Principle,” Mind, 125: 1005–32. (Scholar)
• –––, 2017, “Mill’s Conception of Happiness,” in A Companion to Mill, C. MacLeod and D. Miller (ed.), West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. (Scholar)
• Sayre-McCord, G., 2001, “Mill’s ‘Proof’ of the Principle of Utility: A More than Half-Hearted Defense,” Social Philosophy & Policy, 18: 330–60. (Scholar)
• Scanlon, T.M., 1972, “A Theory of Freedom of Expression,” Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1: 204–26. (Scholar)
• Schmidt-Petri, C., Schefczyk, M., and Osburg, L., 2022, “Who Authored On Liberty? Stylometric Evidence on Harriet Taylor Mill’s Contribution,” Utilitas, 34: 120–38. (Scholar)
• Schneewind, J., 1977, Sidgwick and Victorian Moral Philosophy, Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Scholar)
• Shanley, M., 1998, “The Subjection of Women,” in Skorupski 1998b: 396–422. (Scholar)
• Sidgwick, H., 1873, “John Stuart Mill,” Academy, May 15. (Scholar)
• –––, 1886, Outlines of the History of Ethics for English Readers, London: MacMillan and Co. (Scholar)
• –––, 1907 [1874], The Methods of Ethics, 7^th ed., London: Macmillan. [Sidgwick 1907 [1874] available online] (Scholar)
• Singer, P., 1972, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1: 229–43. (Scholar)
• Skorupski, J., 1989, John Stuart Mill, London: Routledge. (Scholar)
• –––, 1998a, “The Fortunes of Liberal Naturalism,” in Skorupski 1998b: 1–34. (Scholar)
• –––, (ed.), 1998b, The Cambridge Companion to Mill, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
• –––, 2006, Why Read Mill Today? London: Routledge. (Scholar)
• –––, 2021, Being & Freedom: On Late Modern Ethics, Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Scholar)
• Smart, J.J.C. and B. Williams, 1973, Utilitarianism: For and Against, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
• Spencer, H., 1896, The Principles of Sociology, 3 vols., New York: Appleton. (Scholar)
• Stephen, J.F., 1874, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991. (Scholar)
• Stephen, L., 1900, The English Utilitarians, vols. I–III, New York: Augustus Kelley, 1968. (Scholar)
• Sturgeon, N., 2010, “Mill’s Hedonism,” Boston University Law Review, 90: 1705–29 (Scholar)
• Sumner, W., 1996, Welfare, Happiness, & Ethics, New York: Oxford University Press. (Scholar)
• Ten, C.L., 1980, Mill on Liberty, Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Scholar)
• –––, 1998, “Democracy, Socialism, and the Working Classes,”in Skorupski 1998b: 372–95. (Scholar)
• ––– (ed.) 2008, Mill’s On Liberty: A Critical Guide, London: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
• Thompson, D., 1976, John Stuart Mill and Representative Government, Princeton: Princeton University Press. (Scholar)
• Turner, P., 2013a, “Authority, Progress and the Assumption of Infallibility,” Journal of the History of Philosophy, 51: 93–117 (Scholar)
• –––, 2013b, “The Absolutism Problem in On Liberty,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 43: 322–40 (Scholar)
• –––, 2014, “Harm and Mill’s Harm Principle,” Ethics, 124: 299–326 (Scholar)
• –––, 2015a, “Mill and the Liberal Rejection of Legal Moralism,” History of Philosophy Quarterly, 31: 79–99 (Scholar)
• –––, 2015b, “Rules and Right in Mill,” Journal of the History of Philosophy, 53: 723–45 (Scholar)
• –––, 2017, “Mill and Modern Liberalism,” in A Companion to Mill, C. MacLeod and D. Miller (ed.), West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. (Scholar)
• Urmson, J.O., 1953, “An Interpretation of the Philosophy of J.S. Mill,” reprinted in Lyons 1997, 1–8. (Scholar)
• West, H., 1982, “Mill’s ‘Proof’ of the Principle of Utility,” reprinted in Lyons 1997, 85–98. (Scholar)
• –––, 2003, An Introduction to Mill’s Utilitarian Ethics, New York: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
• Williams, B., 1973, “A Critique of Utilitarianism,” in Smart and Williams 1973: 77–150. (Scholar)
• Wilson, F., 1998, “Mill on Psychology and the Moral Sciences,” in Skorupski 1998b: 203–54. (Scholar)
• –––, 2012, “John Stuart Mill,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (Spring 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/mill/>. (Scholar)