Js Mills Conformity

In “Principles of Political Economy & On Liberty,” J.S. Mills states that you have as much liberty as is consistent with other people therefore humans are inherently individuals. You are free to do what you please and to pursue your own idea of the good, so long as you do not harm another or prevent them from pursuing their good. Humans are naturally individuals, which is good because it is essential to the cultivation of the self. A basic problem that Mill sees with society is that individual spontaneity is not respected as having any good in itself, and is not seen as essential to well-being. Mills writes that in early stages of society, it is possible that there could be too much individuality. People become more valuable to themselves
and also more able to be valuable to others when they develop their individuality. Individuality is valuable because people might learn something from the nonconformists (Mills, 1034-1037). Humanity wasn't made to simply conform to each other, for if that were the case then the only skill humans would need would be the art of imitation. Being a member of the community rather than an individual being first tends to lead to conformity and uniformity. Unoriginal people tend to not see the value of uniqueness and shun genius for mediocrity. Based on Mills’ ideologies, it is most ethical for economic thought to focus on individual well being. All people should value what originality brings to the world; liberty and individuality are essential to individual and social (communal) progress. Seeing people's dissimilarities is key in learning about one's own weaknesses. Individuality also lets us see the potential of combining the positive traits of different people. Forced conformity, in contrast, keeps people from learning from each other. The society in which we live in today leans more towards the concept of individuality because although conformity exists, it is a fabricated notion created for consistency purposes and this means that people are inherently individual and it is, in fact, society that tries to conform them. Mill's concern with the oppression of individuality extends to both legal and social realms. In the face of public pressure to conform and the institutionalized power of over-reaching laws, the individual is stopped from an ability to make meaningful choices, and thus from personal development. More generally, and very important to any argument resting on the concept of utility, conformity hurts society as well as the individual in the minority, since in conformity people lose out on potentially riveting ways of approaching life and do not learn from each other anymore.
Society in general does not give enough importance to spontaneous action. Additionally, Mills claims that the government should allow the specialized, informed people to make their own, educated decisions, with the exceptions of education, children/inferiors, contracts and perpetuity, poor laws, monopolies, colonization, labor hours/class interest, and infrastructure (Mills, 1038-1041). In these situations, the government makes decisions so as to best protect and serve the individual and others, and to protect those who do not know from themselves/the harm of others. This is important because it goes back to Mills’ point that it is better for humans to be individuals so that they can make their own decisions that are not uniform with everyone’s decision otherwise this leaves very little room for economic variation or diversity which is essential for ethical economic thoughts and growths. Mill also speaks about the importance of a person to have his own desires and impulses; strong impulses produce energy, the fuel for change and activity in the economic
market.
In “The Wealth of Nations,” Adam Smith discusses people’s roles within an individual and collective sphere, and gives us an insight on what it is about humans that make them such interesting and diversified individuals.
The wealth of a nation stems from its labor force (ability, quality, number), which is important because the more production there is; the more there is to trade. Smith shows his opposition to mercantilism that was existent when he was writing this text; however, he gives an account of a social dynamic that is deeply embedded in human nature. He develops the idea of the division of labor and how this particular partition can lead to the prosperity of a state by producing a surplus of goods and services that can later be exchanged in the economic market. It is also important because it brings to light the significance of individualism versus membership in a community; division of labor shows that it is most ethical for economic thought to focus on individual well-being. The division of labor in industries has lead to increased worker skill (dexterity), increased efficiency, and improved machinery. This is noteworthy because it allows for concentration to be allocated in one area and consequently drives technological innovation and making endeavors more effective, adding to the efficiency and surplus of the economy. One can even go as far as to say that Smith is advocating selfishness but he argues that selfishness is a reality; selfishness drives selflessness
and selfishness is (ironically) productive (Smith, 162-165). Humans aim to make themselves better and to produce to the best of their abilities, which hints at the notion that intrinsically, they know they are individuals because that is how you achieve this elevated level of productivity and efficiency. The divide of labor is prominent in this text and is still important to this day since our modern day economy is fueled by capitalism. The idea is to focus on what you are personally good at (specialization), that way the economy generates the best possible goods efficiently and this division of labor arises from the human tendency to exchange. Due to Smith’s work, I believe that it is quite clear that economically, it is more advantageous and strategic to focus on individual well-being in order to create a sense of communal well-being. If you focus on what you are good at, it will benefit the community as a whole; it is advantageous to the economy as a whole to have everyone focus on their skillset, which will then create an abundant amount of products for trade aiding the expansion for the economy. Human beings are by nature individual but you need that sense of individualism in order to become a member of the community where you can exchange your goods and put your skills to good use for society.
Karl Marx's idea of alienated labor focuses on the idea that industrialized capitalism changes the very nature of an individual's labor from that of creation to that of a form of exploitation making it most ethical for economic thought to focus on individual well-being. According to Marx’s “Alienated Labor,” when an individual works for himself and creates a good, it is his creation, from which he gains monetary profit and professional satisfaction. However, when an individual works on an assembly line for a capitalistic company, said individual is robbed of both factors (Marx, 77-81). Instead of obtaining the full value of their own labor, a laborer for a company actually decreases their value with every product they make. Because a worker is only receiving a set wage, the company, regardless of the amount of work produced, pays them the same. Every time a laborer helps make another product, they are paid less for each item. For instance, an employee gets paid a dollar an hour for helping produce four items and in that time, he is paid 50 cents for each item. If that worker helps produce five items, his pay plunges to 40 cents for each item. If the worker were producing items that he would sell himself, more work would equate to greater gain from that extra work therefore there is more incentive to focus on individual well-being and economic progression. Looking at Marx’s work, I argue that this shows that by nature, human beings are individuals because they are more concerned with their self-interest than to be working for a company and being “productive members of society.” Marx saw an alienating effect when an individual could no longer see extra gain from their extra work. The creative control that an individual had over his craftsmanship was part of what Marx saw as the alienation of a worker. When an independent worker produces a good, he chooses the best way to craft the item and independently judges the method of creation of a product. However, a laborer working in a factory has no control over what he does because he does what he is told to do and how to do it. The laborer’s work is reduced to just a tool that performs the same thing over and over with little personal input. Unmistakably, it is most ethical for economic thought to focus on individual well-being because in the long haul, it is what will lead to more gratified workers and a more beneficial and successful economy. Alienating workers just makes one worker just as good as another with no room for skill or creativity, depriving workers of any creative aspect of labor. Such labor alienates people from their work and from themselves, essentially desensitizing them.
Humans are naturally individuals because we tend to care about the well being of others primarily because of the pleasure we get from seeing them happy and because sympathy is innate in human beings, whether it makes us happy or sad (or something else). Essentially, it all goes back to how it makes us feel which is the beginning of the idea of individualism. It is understandable to believe that human beings are naturally individuals because we tend to gear towards aspects that focus mainly on our own well being, self-improvement or a self-fulfilling feeling. People may give their all to make others have certain feelings but in the grand scheme of things, they do this for themselves; humans help each other to get pleasure for themselves and the fortune/misfortune we witness is vibrantly illustrated to us. You have to focus on yourself first and foremost before you can go out into society to apply any moral or aesthetic standard that you have. This is not to say that selfishness is synonymous to individuality, but we, as humans, tend to act in selfish manners naturally, which underlines the individual oriented traits we intuitively have within us. The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a good way of illustrating this case. The Prisoner’s Dilemma can test people’s willingness to set aside selfish interests to reach a greater good for the community and, more than often, being selfish is more advantageous than cooperating even if the benefits are short-lived. In today’s economic world, we frequently hear phrases like “business is business” often being suggesting a form of justification on account of our own personal interests because we are naturally more interested in our own affairs than anyone else’s.