This essay examines John Stuart Mill's philosophy of nature through the lens of a well-known episode of The Simpsons, in which Lisa Simpson rescues a fish from a plastic six-pack holder only to see it consumed by a shark. Using this episode as a narrative anchor, the paper argues that nature cannot serve as a moral guide for human behavior. It explores Mill's dual definition of nature, the relationship between natural law and free will, and the paradox of environmentalism — which often requires working against nature in order to protect it. The essay concludes that human morality, guided by conscience rather than natural instinct, represents a higher ethical standard than nature alone can provide.
This paper demonstrates the technique of using an extended analogy — here, a single television episode — as a recurring touchstone to illuminate a philosophical argument. Rather than simply summarizing Mill, the author tests his claims against a concrete narrative scenario, showing how theory operates in practice. This approach keeps abstract ideas grounded while demonstrating critical thinking about the source text.
The essay opens by introducing the Simpsons episode and connecting it to Mill's central claim that nature cannot be a moral guide. It then defines nature through Mill's first definition and relates it to free will. Subsequent paragraphs address the paradox of environmentalism, offering examples such as wolf reintroduction to national forests. The essay closes by affirming that human moral conscience — not natural instinct — represents the appropriate ethical standard, synthesizing the pop culture example with Mill's philosophical framework.
In an episode of the popular television show The Simpsons, Lisa tries to talk Mr. Burns into developing environmental awareness. The unlikely duo picks up discarded cans, bottles, and other recyclable materials. On the beach one day, Lisa finds a plastic six-pack holder with a live fish caught in one of the rings. After telling Mr. Burns that six-pack holders are potential death traps for small animals, she frees the fish and tosses him back into the water. No sooner does the fish hit the surface than a large shark sails up, grabs the fish, and ends its life by eating it.
This story illustrates part of John Stuart Mill's philosophy of nature: nature cannot teach us how to live. On the one hand, Mill states that following nature is unavoidable because natural law dictates all human action. On the other hand, nature, with all its beauty and splendor, is essentially cruel. Weather phenomena and natural disasters wreak havoc on living creatures; animals fight bloody battles and kill each other with wanton cruelty. This Simpsons episode proves that "nature cannot be a proper model for us to imitate" (180). Throwing the fish into the sea only resulted in its demise — the opposite of what Lisa intended. While following nature remains a romantic notion, Mill is correct in stating that nature is not a proper role model. Following nature is a lofty ideal, but one that would result in amorality.
To follow nature would also negate free will. According to Mill's first definition, nature is "what takes place without the agency, or without the voluntary and intentional agency, of man" (178). This would imply that nature governs and dictates all human actions and creations, leaving us no free will — no choice but to follow nature. However, Lisa acted with total free will, and contrary to natural law.
No other animal would have rescued the fish from the six-pack holder; there is no natural force that could or would have helped the fish except human intervention. Therefore, Lisa Simpson understood that nature must be respected but not imitated. She acted with moral conscience, while nature — in the form of the shark — acted with self-serving and amoral instinct.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.