As I was reading and rereading diligently along in John Rawls' Theory of Justice (Harvard University Press, 1971), hoping to figure out whodunit, I was startled by the following three sentences in a footnote on p. 209: "Mill's definition of utility as grounded on the permanent interests of a man as a progressive being is in On Liberty, ch. I, par. 11. Note the indefinite article.
He is thinking not of the development of mankind historically, but of each man."
I was startled because I had always understood Mill differently; in quite the opposite fashion, in fact. So I pulled down my trusty World's Classics edition (1912) of On Liberty, counted to the eleventh paragraph, and read (on p. 16) the following: "I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being." Definitely no indefinite article here before "man." But then I began to wonder. Rawls is a careful scholar. If he makes such a point of directing attention to "the indefinite article," and of insisting that Mill said "a man," rather than just "man," there must be something in it, even though I felt that this couldn't be right. Though this was not the first passage in Rawl's book that had puzzled, baffled, or perplexed me, it was the first to generate a question that I regarded as susceptible of a definite answer. Perhaps he had read a corrupt edition. Perhaps I had? This gave me pause. So I pulled down my copy of the Everyman's Library edition (1910), turned to the appropriate passage (p. 74) and read the following: "I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of a man as a progressive being." There was the indefinite article. Definitely. And I had never noticed it before, though I had read this particular edition, and had even underlined the passage (though I wasn't absolutely sure of that -that might have been done by a previous owner). Perhaps my World's Classics edition was not so trusty after all. So I turned to my Modern Library edition (The English Philosophers from Bacon to Mill, 1939), which was the one, ifI remember aright, in which I had first read On Liberty, found the passage (p. 957), and read: "a man." No doubt about it; and the underlining was clearly mine too (no previous owner). Curiouser and curiouser! What to do now? I had one edition left, the Croft's Classics edition (1947), and read (p. 11): "permanent interests of man .... " Strange ! A standoff. Two against two. But each of the editions was a reprint, and one might have been simply an uncritical reprint of another. Which text was corrupt? And which text had Rawls read, or else read the indefinite article into?