Sezer Türkaydın

2014202003

PHIL106

28.04.2021

Passage from “On Nature” by John Stuart Mill

In this passage which is taken from On Nature, John Stuart Mills presents an

argument. This argument is an inductive argument because the discussion is on nature and

human behavior is and they are very broad and open to change they cannot give us a full

assurance for our conclusion. Also, this is a valid argument. We can see that if the premises

are taken as true, the conclusion is necessarily true. In this argument, his conclusion is that

“we should not use nature as a ground of our moral laws” and he aims to convince the reader

by presenting his premises. Moreover, this passage has parts which function as an

introduction as they are not part of his argument. In the rest of my text, I will examine the

passage and indicate the functions of the parts of the passage. Then I will show the premises

explicitly, explain how they function together and lead us to the conclusion which I just

mentioned. Eventually, I will evaluate his argument.

I want to look at the text from the beginning. The paragraph which starts with dealing

with the word “nature” and some linguistic facts about it until its end functions as an

introduction. Even though Mill includes his own opinions with expressions like “but it is

unfortunate that” (Mill, 1874, line 5), this paragraph does not give us any claims or reasons

and it is just a paragraph that prepares us for his argument.

The next paragraph is more related to his argument. This part is like his critique of the

previous argumentations which he objects to. He criticizes the ones who use nature as a
ground for moral laws. However, for the sake of the form of his argument, this part still does

not contribute any claim or reason and I think this part can be still seen as an introduction,

too. This also continues to prepare us for his argument while giving clues about his position.

In the next parts, he starts to present his argument. His argumentation basically

consists of presenting two meanings of “nature” and showing how neither of them gives a

reason for us to use nature as a basis of our moral laws.

The way he deals with the first meaning is very simple. Since the first meaning of

“nature” is the order of material world, he explains that “humans do not have any other choice

but to follow the rules of nature.” (Mill, 1874, line 28). To demonstrate that the the first

meaning does not give us a good reason to use nature as a ground for moral laws, he does not

give any additional premises as it just follows logically that humans follow the rules of nature

because they are necessarily part of the entire system of things (Mill, 1874, line 24) which is

the first meaning of nature.

However, the way he deals with the second meaning of nature is more critical. He says

that it is irrational and immoral for humans (Mill, 1874, line 32), as beings with the capacity

of voluntary actions, to follow the flow of nature. It is important that Mill, here, gives further

explanations –as sub-arguments- for it is irrational and immoral however before than that,

maybe it is worth to note that here, I think, Mill presupposes that humans have free will.

For his claim “it is irrational...” Mill says that it is irrational because all human actions

actually is reforms the flow of nature. For his claim “it is immoral...” he says it is immoral

because when a human adopts the flow of nature in his actions, “that person will be the

wickedest of men” (Mill, 1874, line 39). Both of these sub-arguments emphasize the

importance of human rationality and presupposes that anything humans do using their

rationality is better than the flow of nature. Therefore, Mill shows that the second meaning of
nature does not give us a good reason to use nature as a ground for our moral laws. Moreover,

it actually gives us reason for not to have it as a ground of our moral laws.

Therefore, after Mill shows that neither meaning of nature gives us good reasons, and

the second meaning actually gives us a reason not to have it as a ground –because when we

adopt the flow of nature, the result will be disastrous. His argument is basically consists of

premises: (1) “If we adopt nature as a ground of our moral laws, it should be the case that we

have good reasons to do so.” (2) “We don’t have good reasons because neither definitions of

nature is appropriate for that.” and then he reaches the conclusion that (∴) “We should not use

nature as a ground for our moral laws”.

In the last paragraph of the passage, Mill further emphasizes the importance of human

rationality, its superiority over flow nature and explains his conclusion and aims to convince

the reader why it is not valuable to adopt nature. Overall, his argument is consistent and he

does not fall into contradictions. His premises can be evaluated with their presuppositions in

longer discussions. Even though I agree with Mill’s approach I think it would be beneficial to

discuss further on human behaviors and their relation with nature. Apart from this, with the

way Mill presents it, I believe, the argument is convincing and explanatory.

References

Mill. J. S. (1874). On Nature.

*Since I worked on the passage that is given to us directly, I could not give page references

for the parts I refer to lines of passage in my text.