Mill’s critics would likely say that Utilitarianism as a whole can function to create selfish people because all are striving towards a life of more pleasure than pain, but Mill shuts this down with the idea of happiness being impartial. Basically, a person must choose an action that yields the most happiness or pleasure, whether that pleasure is for them or not. Mill would recognize that, “Among the qualitatively superior ends are the moral ends, and it is in this that people acquire the sense that they have moral intuitions superior to mere self-interest” (Wilson). By this, it is meant that although people are supposed to take action that will produce the greatest pleasure, the do not do so in a purely selfish manner. Mill goes on to argue that the happiness of individuals is interconnected; therefore one cannot be selfish in such a way.
With this concession, he makes the point that good is that which preserves and benefits. Justice is good, so it therefore preserves and benefits in this life as well as the next. Therefore, even though a man may w... ... middle of paper ... ... strive fore, it is my belief that all people are immoral, and strives to become less immoral. So which is more beneficial Morality or immorality? A just person is happier than the unjust person for this reason, which the just person's soul is in order, whereas the unjust person's soul is in decay and disorder.
Just acts spawn other just acts just like unjust acts spawn other unjust acts. If everyone behaved unjustly, mankind would return to a state of nature (everyone is for themselves) which would be very unprofitable for the unjust individual due to a decreased likelihood of survival. An action is clearly unprofitable for the unjust individual if it would eventually create a hostile environment for him. Hence, one should set an example for others by living a just life which would create a better environment for him as well as for others. To sum up, justice is more profitable than injustice because it does not lead to true happiness, it gives way to possibility of punishment, and it creates a pattern of behavior which if universalized would lead to disaster.
I will argue that Epicurus’s version of happiness is false and Nozick’s Happiness helps show that. Epicurus’s version of happiness is the lack of pain and the meeting the basic needs. Epicurus also believes in having pleasurable things in life. Nozick’s shows how happiness is more than just pleasure or pain. He also shows how happiness is not the only important thing in life.
In fact, I would say finding happiness from a good action would make a person better than if they were only doing the action for a duty and because they felt they had to. Besides this imperfection to the theory, there are many others that prove deontology is severely flawed and cannot be taken
So basically we seek certain pleasures in times of discomfort or pain to remove that, so when we attain the pleasure that will remove our pain and discomfort, that is when we have achieved a happy life. By saying it is the goal, he means that ... ... middle of paper ... ...that it is the goal or aim of life, as I feel he does not cover things that may be more important than just pleasure and virtues. I agree in terms of the fact that he thinks not every pleasure may be desirable, I believe that there are many good things in the world but all of them may not cater to our needs or provide us with satisfaction. I also agree in some places that yes we need to be good people to live a pleasant life, and in the end being a bad person with no virtues or values will result in punishment or some sort of bad consequences. Other than that his views are strong and do make sense but I would not agree with his entire philosophy and certainly not his definition of the good life.
Glaucon, however, is not satisfied and proposes a challenge to Plato to prove that justice is intrinsically valuable and that living a just life is always superior. This paper will explain Glaucon’s challenge to Plato regarding the value of justice, followed by Plato’s response in which he argues that his theory of justice, explained by three parts of the soul, proves the intrinsic value of justice and that a just life is preeminent. Finally, it will be shown that Plato’s response succeeds in answering Glaucon’s challenge. Glaucon begins his argument to Plato by separating goods into three classes. The first class is composed of intrinsic goods that we welcome for our own sake, stripped of their consequences, such as happiness.
By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.” Meaning that, deeds are perceived to be good after they lead to a larger happiness and bad after it cuts down happiness. As such, people who understand their higher faculties are often less satisfied, because they have a deeper understanding of the restrictions in life. This is why Mill says, "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinions, it is because they only know their side of the question." What he is trying to explain is that human desires are extra urbane than animals and as ... ... middle of paper ... ...norant, and so on.
This thought concept is not valid, because I believe that everyone has the capacity of feeling sorrow and enjoyment, and it can’t be used to confirm if someone has a good life or a bad life. Bravery comes in the absence of one being a coward, just like good comes in the absence of bad, however someone who is brave can experience both pain and pleasure. Someone who is brave or intelligent might be seen as superior in society, but that is because they have more respect and have proved their worth. It doesn’t mean that they have more pleasures in their life. Works Cited Plato, and Donald J. Zeyl.
At some point his idea makes sense. To live in a strict utilitarian society you would need someone to decide what the greater good would be for all. I would to some extent agree with him on that point. But the truth is we don't live in a utilitarian society. “A good will is not a good because what of effects or accomplishes because of its fitness to attain some proposed end but only because of its violati... ... middle of paper ... ...ately lights upon what is in fact in common interests and in conformity with duty and hence honorable, deserves praise and encouragement but not esteem; for the maxim lacks moral content, namely that of doing such actions not from inclination.” (Page, 11, Kant) Second, possessing and maintaining one's moral goodness is the very condition under which anything else is worth having or pursuing.