John Stuart Mill was an educational experiment. His father James Mill a friend of Jeremy Bentham (the previous philosopher we talked about last class) shared John Locke's view that a newborn or young child's mind was empty. James Mill believe that raising a child the right way, there was a good chance that child will be a genius. So James taught John the "right way" and he later became a prodigy. By the age of 12, John had a appreciation for history, economics, mathematics and he had a special interest in science.
John was an optimist though he never got over his strange childhood and he still remained a bit distant towards people throughout his whole life. He believed in positive contribution. In order for something good to happen you have to actually go out there and do whatever it is you have to do to get things going. He also believed in in having the highest maximal freedom. As long as the process doesn't harm anyone. A scenario/question came up in our group. What if that person lets say did meth twice a day, 7 days a week.Would doing that action harm anybody? Mike made a good point and said yes. His reason was that even though that person isn't hurting anyone else physically but he can hurt someone else emotionally. Let's say this person was your mother. Wouldn't you be emotionally hurt that she is doing meth? Someone that you care about can potentially die from this drug addiction. At that point your mother is no longer in free will because she is consumed with this drug addiction.
We all agreed on even though this is going against people liberties of freedom and Mill's argument we would still intervene because its the right thing to do.
Great summary Jessica! You basically took everything i had in mind,and i am glad you agreed with my point. ( : In addition, Mill's approach has some quite disturbing consequences. At the end of the reading they gave a good example, "Imagine a an with no family who decides the he will drink two bottle of vodka every night." It could be easy to see this person drink himself to death. But do we know why this person drinks this much a day? Do we know this person need help? Should we stop this person from drinking that much? Should we help this person and maybe keep him from dying? In my opinion i think we should try to he this person because who this person might need some one to give him some love, care for him, or this person might also be depressed or an alcoholic and in need of help. So, by helping this person, we might have saved the person's life. Mill thinks we shouldn't stop this person from drinking that much unless this person risks harming someone. I think Mill is wrong about that because sometimes you GOT TO FORCE someone to do something they do not want to do to for their own good or to save their life. Basically what Mill is saying if someone decided to kill himself/herself in front of you, you should not stop them because they're not harming anyone but themselves. I think that is kind of selfish to let someone die in front of you. From my point of view, i don't think God would like that. FQ: 1. Should we let someone do something harmful to themselves just because they can or should we stop them?
ReplyDeleteBeing raised the "right way" John had a appreciation for history, economics, mathematics and science.
ReplyDeleteJohn was an optimist though he didnt have much a child hood and lived distant from people as a result. He believed in positive contribution. In order for something good to happen you have to provoke good with your own personal good will. He was a strong believer in maximum free-doom as long it didnt hurt any one else. Our group spent a great deal of time talking about how one person causing harm to themselves could possibly hurt those who loved him. We pretty much all disagreed with the thought of maxium freedom this is the epitome of free doom