Societal Acceptance for Experiments of Living - Essay Example

Experiments of Living Societal acceptance for experiments of living means that it allows people to elect how they live their lives. In this case, society offers encouragement for diverse types of religious worship, organization of the family, artistic expressions, and testing every variable of an individual’s life that is conceivable. John Mill contends that “there should be different experiments of living; that free scope should be given to varieties of character, short of injury to others, and that the worth of different modes of life should be proved practically” (Mill 37). According to Mill, people must be allowed to exist and carry on their lives as is dictated by their character, and this is only limited if their actions begin to cause harm to other people. From this latter perspective, a woman with no children and based on her religious beliefs does not seek medical care for herself, her family, or friends is causing harm by not seeking medical advice, although her act of not having children should be allowed. Mill offers several reasons why experiments of living should be allowed. He offers the infallibility argument, in which he contends that society, as it is, is not perfect and the only manner in which society can move forward is by allowing for experiments of life (Gray 52). Natural selection and the forces that drive it need change to occur if they are to work. The selective process would only allow the production of happiness. Whereby, if there is a greater population of people living happily under a particular method, this method will spread to other areas. Since a specific way of life could be an improvement on the way people live; no way of life should be forbidden or suppressed (Gray 52). In the case of a woman with no children refusing medical help for anyone, her life cannot bring any happiness and, as such, cannot spread. This way of life will not improve anyone’s life, including hers. Mill also offers the partly true argument, which contends that where there is a way of life that is unviable in itself, it could carry with it some lessons that could benefit society (Gray 54). The woman in this case embodies radical living that cannot spread across the world, as it is unsuitable. However, this egalitarian view held by a woman is an essential lesson in a world where a woman is expected to have a child. Ways of life that are flawed, rendering them undesirable as the common rule, rather than being the exception, do possess merits and valuable ideas. Ideas that can benefit society can only be achieved when society allows practical testing and trial of these ways of life (Gray 54). Therefore, even disagreeable living experiments like that of this woman should be allowed in the case of not bearing children. This partly true argument can be furthered through the contention that even a way of life that has no tangible benefits for anyone involved must be allowed. This is because it will act as a highlight to the benefits of other ways of life (Gray 55). Only when society tries out a way of life in reality that it can be judged to have no merit. Hence, it acts as evidence of the manner in which its guiding principles work practically. For example, the woman who refuses medical care for everyone may be suggestive of life that is permanently full of divine grace and hope, which is a perfect aim to work for. An experiment of living like this one offers vivid evidence that the goal it aims for is flawed. John Mill also argues that the fact that the human race is made of diverse groups and cultures, is proof that society should encourage diverse modes of living. All persons possess different characters and, therefore, all persons have diverse ways of life, which are best for them. In John Mill’s words, “The same mode of life is a healthy excitement to one, keeping all his faculties of action and enjoyment in their best order, while to another it is a distracting burden which suspends or crushes all internal life” (Mill 44). Where there is an attempt to enforce a set way of life for everyone, the citizens of that society will be required to compromise on everyone’s happiness. Attempting to make the woman bear children against her will may end up making her and, by extension the baby, unhappy. Diversity in life, therefore, seems to be more preferable. Looking past Mill’s Utilitarian arguments, he also considers it inherently necessary for a human to chose how they want to live and, in doing so, develop specific qualities that are distinctive as an endowment to them (Mill 40). While he does not offer any supporting reasons for why he adds on the right to choose one’s lifestyle in the Eudaimonia view, he leaves the individual to his/her instincts for them to agree, while his other arguments are meant to support this reason. He continues to contend that societal freedom encourages the emergence of genius. He is of the idea that one can only achieve genius if they are allowed to breathe freely in an environment that fosters freedom (Mill 42). Thus, society must encourage freedom in order to reap the rewards that genius offers to the society as a whole. In the case of this woman, however, there is no genius in what she is doing, which makes her actions indefensible under this supportive argument. However, it is possible to challenge this claim using the Renaissance period that saw many genii greatly constricted in their freedoms. Mill also contends that experiments of living must be allowed to exist and that the only restriction that should stand in the way of experiments of living is the harm principle (Gray 60). This harm principle holds that all action should be allowed in freedom as long as it does not cause any harm to other people, which offers a chance to multiple experiments of living. In addition, the two ideas are founded on the belief that no final solution exists and that there is no perfect way of life. In the case that such a life exists, man is yet to discover it. However, agreeing to take the harm principle as the limiting factor on the experiments of living means that society must accept the benefits and weaknesses that it brings (Gray 60). In the woman’s case, refusal to accept medical care for herself, her family, and her friends end up harming her and those around her, this falls short of the harm principle. Mill believes that for a man to be true to his nature, society must indulge in these alternative ways of living. He argues that, in society’s early stages, the possibility of too much individuality was real. However, the danger is; at present, there is a stifling of impulses and desires (Mill & Stefan 60). Mill contends that individuals have the capability to be of more value to themselves, as well as to others, if they are allowed to create an individual self. There is a lot of value in allowing for alternative ways of living and allowing for individuality since man can learn a lot from those who do not conform. These dissenters have the ability to discover new ways to do things, while keeping the old ways alive. Genius is rare, and it can only thrive where there is freedom. People who lack originality do not see what value is present in originality and therefore argue that what is referred to as genius is in actual is mediocrity. Arguing against this, Mill says that the 19th century, unlike the Middle Ages, tends towards encouraging mediocrity and diminishing the role of the individual (Mill & Stefan 61). This he links to the culture of democracy in government. There needs to be a conscious effort made towards reversing this trend in order for man to embrace truly his nature of freedom. There is no one particular way in which an individual should live his or her own life. If an individual has developed sufficiently, the choice he/she makes on their way of life are the best for them, especially because the way of life is his/her own (Mill & Stefan 61). Where a woman decides not to have children and refuse medical care, this way of life must be accepted as her own. This is so because this life is what makes her happy, and she sees as best for her, in spite of the obvious harm it causes her family and friends. People need to be in different environments to develop their potential and realize it. In addition, society should ensure that it is possible for people to live more than one way of life. Indulging in alternative ways through individuality, and liberty is important to social and individual progress, which is man’s true nature. Seeing the dissimilar situations that exist between different people is vital if man is to learn the true nature of his weaknesses and strengths (Mill & Stefan 62). Diverse ways of life also allow man to see how he can combine traits that are positive in different people, which has always been man’s nature, especially in the formation of cultures. Forced conformity prevents man from keeping to his nature of learning from others. According to Mill, the despotism of customs has held back improvement in England. On the other hand, the diversity of Europe’s paths and lifestyle, have made it more progressive in comparison to China, which has a conformist culture. However, he worries that the progress being made by Europe towards becoming more like China in ensuring that they are alike will lead to stagnation of Europe’s nature to feed off its diversity, leading it to face stagnation and lack of progress (Mill & Stefan 62). From Mill’s point of view, experiments of living must be encouraged, as long as the way one lives his/her own life does not harm another person. He argues that it is through this that man society can progress, learn lessons from unviable ways of life, highlight the benefits of his own life, and enjoy his life fully. Where a woman decides not to bear children and refuse medical care for herself, her family, and her friends due to religious beliefs, she is supported in her way of life by Mill’s arguments. However, the fact that she is hurting others ensures that her experiment of living should be discouraged. Works Cited Gray, John. Mill on Liberty: A Defence. London: Routledge, 2013. Print. Mill, John. S. On Liberty and Other Essays. Boston: Digireads.com Publishing, 2010. Print. Mill, John. S. & Stefan, Collini. On Liberty. Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1995. Print. Read More