Evaluating Paul Gauguin's Views

In this paper I will evaluate how Nietzsche and Mill would answer the question of if it were right or wrong for Paul Gauguin to quit his job and abandon his family to pursue a career in art. I will then develop my own view about Gauguin’s actions, explain why I think there are two important points in this issue that need to be addressed and why I think his actions were both permissible and impermissible, and compare my view with the views of Nietzsche and Mill. In 1885, Paul Gauguin quit his job to pursue a full-time career as an artist. He left his wife and five children to move to Tahiti. While he was there he became one of the most important artists of all time. However, when he made the decision to leave his job, home, and family behind,
Mill was one of the main proponents of Utilitarianism, which asserts that everything people do should be either to maximize the sum total of happiness in the world or to minimize the sum total of unhappiness in the world. This theory states that the moral worth of an action is dependent only on its resulting consequences. So, simply put the moral worth of an action is measured by how much happiness it generates for the greatest number of people. Mill would have said that Gauguin was acting selfishly and his actions were not aimed at either creating happiness/utility or decreasing the sum total of unhappiness in the world, “The utilitarian morality does recognize human beings the power of sacrificing their own greatest good for the good of others” (Mill 6). Gauguin did not sacrifice his greatest good for the good of his family; he acted selfishly when he left his home behind. Mill would say that Gauguin’s actions were not permissible based on the fact above and that he chose the pleasure that would please him the most, without regard for the pleasure that would please the most people, especially his family, “Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both
First, I think people should be able to pursue their dreams and passions without resistance. So, in that respect I would say that Gauguin’s actions were permissible because it was his life to live and he was searching for meaning, which is a respectable action. On the other hand, Gauguin made a commitment to his wife when he married her and he made a commitment to his children when he and his wife conceived, a commitment that should be honored. He essentially took a leap of faith, and going on strictly probability, it was a miracle that he succeeded in his artistic endeavors. After giving this problem some thought, I have to side with Mill. If Mill were to evaluate Gauguin’s actions as they were happening, Mill would disapprove because he could not have known the resulting consequences of Gauguin’s actions. If Mill were to evaluate his actions after the fact he would have approved because he would have seen that Gauguin’s actions ended up bringing raising the sum total of happiness/utility in the world. I think it is important to evaluate how Mill would react in both of these situations. Going back to if Mill had been there from the start, he would have said that it was irresponsible and selfish for Gauguin to leave his wife and especially his FIVE children to pursue a craft in which he little to no chance of succeeding in. Without financial support, he put his wife and children in a difficult situation, let alone