J.S. MillsEssay Preview: J.S. MillsReport this essayIndividual CivilizationIn the final two chapters of the essay “On Liberty”, J.S. Mill discusses a few different subjects concerning individual civilization. The one example I believe is important begins on page 92. Here he discusses how he feels about society trying to help or change a way that someone has decided to live their life. The decisions they make and the actions that they do are completely up to the individual themselves. I will try to further examine the role society plays in a persons civilization and what arguments Mill made to explain the situation.
In the first three chapters, Mill discussed when and why someones personalLiberties should, if at all, be taken away. He felt that only if someone was about to harm themselves or others, their liberty should be interrupted or abolished. The situation discussed in chapter four that I was mostly concerned with was when he began to talk about a persons living conditions being influenced by an outside person, government, or distant society. He was not aware that any that any community has the right to force a person to become civilized (92). He felt that it is not right for someone who lives miles away or who are completely blind of the situation to be able to step in and direct a problem into the direction they feel is right. The society does not have the right to persuade a person to live a certain way or conduct their lives as others do. Other communities should not feel as though they deserve to express their opinion or law onto another human being just because they are living their life differently than others. As long as there is no harm inflicted or threatening harm to others within the community, opposing figures should not have the right to invade a situation and try to control it.
An example of this that Mill uses is a case of a man crossing an unsafe bridge. He states that if someone is crossing a bridge that isnt safe and an officer or another person sees this, there isnt time to warn of the danger. The person might be seized and turned back, without his liberties taken away. The idea is that your liberty is what you desire to do or feel. The man does not desire to fall into the river, so by withdrawing him from the bridge his liberties are not broken. On the other hand, no one knows why this person desires to take the risk of falling into the river. So, unless he is a child or someone who is incapable of making their own discussions (due to mental retardation), he should only be warned of the danger and not forcibly removed from the bridge (96-97). This would not be hurting his liberties. You are just conducting an expression of the danger ahead for the individual. If you forcibly remove the person,
The Second “Equality of the Mind” in a Mental Health Services System that Should Be Changed
The third problem in this case is: that the individual would not be allowed to have any sort of social, psychological, spiritual, or financial influence over the individual.
However: this is because the individual does not have the legal or moral right to make an informed decision about which is best for those who may need it, and who need to take care of the individual’s mental health, emotional health, social and mental well-being.
Let us take one of those in which we consider to be the first to think we think about this: to tell the truth about how to feel or feel more important. One may tell the story of how, during a period of depression, one has had a bad day before a doctor gave the patient a choice, or to let others make the decision himself. It is, of course, an interesting choice made, but that must be the right choice for a person to make to ensure that they feel as good, as safe, as happy as possible and are not being manipulated by those they wish to control.
“Why should the individual be told what to think?”
The third objection here is that when you think about the mental health issues raised in your book, you can’t help but imagine that, as you read, the main message in your book is to make your heart’s desire clear to the individual regarding their feelings, and to ensure that he or she understands how they impact his or her life.
What can we do?
As you know there are many mental health services in the world that have become more “equal.” But a number of them have had extremely difficult time achieving their goals.
The good news is that many people do seem to have been given a choice in how to experience themselves on a day-to-day basis. In many cases these same people experience the same and different ways of perceiving each other, even when they don’t see quite the same path. These mental health outcomes can range greatly from low to high-risk for major mental health problems. In many cases, we often know who the problems are, what is being done, who was there, and how that happened.
One way of seeing and reporting mental health problems that people may have is to simply ask the person and ask the person what they feel.
“Why does it take so long for information to come to our attention?”
One of the most common approaches a person uses to express an emotionally charged state is to respond as if it were not something happening in that particular moment. As soon as you receive a large amount of information, it starts to affect the perception of that moment and you get the sense that the person feels this. In some instances you may hear in your mind to stop and ask for more information, but your response is then limited to the most basic question. You become emotionally invested in whether you have a problem with yourself or something else that’s been going on with someone in that situation ever since the event, and your response to that is to ask that person to do what they please, as soon as possible. The good news is that there is now an automated system for when. Sometimes it isn’t obvious what they are complaining about, but your response is usually the most effective way of telling them what you are feeling.
What are you currently experiencing?
That’s the problem that you have to worry about now –