More handpicked essays just for you.
John stuart mill maximization of happiness
John stuart mill maximization of happiness
John stuart mill maximization of happiness
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: John stuart mill maximization of happiness
Chris Heathwood, Epicurus, and John Stuart Mill all have their own visions of what “the good life” is and what it consists of. Chris Heathwood has the idea that “getting what you want” is the key to the good life, but Epicurus and John Stuart Mill both have hedonistic views about life. Though fairly similar, there are several differences between these two views. First of all, Epicurus believes that pleasure is the “starting point” of every decision we make. These “pleasures” we are seeking, whether it be money, love, or even something that is considered pleasurable by everyone, like the ability to see color or to eat sweets. While we do keep pleasure in mind, Heathwood reminds us that if we want to actually benefit from said pleasure, we must first desire it. Likewise, he gives an example of enjoying chocolate. He tells us that the taste of chocolate is a good taste to be experiencing, but only if the person tasting it actually wants to taste it. By this example, he led to saying that “pleasure’s value depends entirely on the creature’s wanting it, liking it, or taking an interest in it” (Heathwood 39). …show more content…
Mill reminds us that virtue plays a part in our decision making process. If a person desires virtue, that person is more likely to choose a lesser pleasure in order to be able to achieve the level of virtue he or she wants. However, Heathwood tells us that virtue isn’t necessarily the best way to decide what to do. Heathwood has the idea that we benefit when a desire we have is satisfied, and he tells us that if we live life from the objectivist’s point of view (where we do things because “they are good for us ‘whether we like it or not’” (34)), we might not end up as happy as we would if we would choose to stick to the subjectivist’s point of view of seeking to fulfil our own personal
The principle of utility states that actions or behaviors are right in so far as they promote happiness or pleasure, wrong if they tend to deliver despondency or torment. Mill believes that the principle of utility is the perfect way to evaluate ethics is through the individual's happiness. People who have the opportunity to chose or purse there own form of happiness usually makes really wise ethical decisions, which improves society. I agree with mill’s theory because happiness always produces good things, which would very beneficial to the
Hedonism is a theory of morality. There are several popular philosophers who support hedonism; some of whom offer their own interpretation of the theory. This paper will focus on the Epicurean view. Epicurus, a Greek philosophers born in 341 B.C., generated a significant measure of controversy amongst laymen and philosophical circles in regards to his view of the good life. Philosophers whom teachings predate Epicurus’ tended to focus on the question of “How can human beings live a good, morally sound, life?” Epicurus ruffled feathers and ultimately expanded the scope of philosophy by asking “What makes people happy?”
Mill grew up under the influences from his father and Bentham. In his twenties, an indication of the cerebral approach of the early Utilitarians led to Mill’s nervous breakdown. He was influential in the growth of the moral theory of Utilitarianism whose goal was to maximize the personal freedom and happiness of every individual. Mill's principle of utility is that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness”. Utilitarianism is the concept that a man should judge everything based on the ability to promote happiness for the greatest number of individual. He believes that Utilitarianism must show how the conversion can be made from an interest in one’s own particular bliss to that of others. John Stuart Mill also states that moral action should not be judged on the individual case but more along the lines of “rule of thumb” and says that individuals ought to measure the outcomes and settle on their choices in view of the consequence and result that advantages the most people. Mill believes that pleasure is the only wanted consequence. Mill supposes that people are gifted with the capacity for conscious thought, and they are not happy with physical delights, but rather endeavor to accomplish the joy of the psyche too. He asserts that individuals want pleasure and reject
In order for the insistence that equity and impartiality to hold true to Mill's Utility, we must find a foundation from within his argumentation that will support it. Thus we turn to Mill's sanctions, or incentives that he proposes to drive one towards the path of Utility. Mill's first sanction, the internal sanction, leads one to act ethically because of the fear of displeasure that might arise from other people if one does not act in this manner. Mill justifies that individuals desire the warmness of others as an incentive to acting unselfishly in the attempt to acquire the greatest good, and fear the dissatisfaction of others. Mill's second sanction, the internal sanction, is in essence an individual's inner conscience. With the assumption that the conscience is pure and free from corruption, Mill implies that satisfaction is brought forth to the conscience when one successfully and ethically commits to one's duties, the duty of Utility. What is undesired is the feeling of dissatisfaction that spawns when one does not act dutifully. In order for this rationale to make sense, one must do what is almost unavoid...
According to John Stuart Mill, toleration is primarily grounded upon the assumption of the importance of autonomy of the individual. The main benefit of this tolerance is that it protects every particular opinion which would otherwise be in danger of suppression were it not for toleration. Through practicing toleration in society, Mill believes the most happiness can be achieved and therefore the best lifestyle. However, he does not believe there is one pattern for how to best live life. He argues, rather, if a person is adequately developed, then his/her choices for how to live are best precisely because they are his/her own. However, in accordance with utilitarian principles, this assumption only goes so far as that those choices do not directly diminish other’s pleasures or cause excess of pain to them or oneself.
John Stuart Mill believes in a utilitarian society where people are seen as “things.” Moreover, in utilitarianism the focus of the goal is “forward-looking”, in looking at the consequences but not the ini...
Mill made a distinction between happiness and sheer sensual pleasure. He defines happiness in terms of higher order pleasure (i.e. social enjoyments, intellectual). In his Utilitarianism (1861), Mill described this principle as follows:According to the Greatest Happiness Principle … The ultimate end, end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible enjoyments.Therefore, based on this statement, three ideas may be identified: (1) The goodness of an act may be determined by the consequences of that act. (2) Consequences are determined by the amount of happiness or unhappiness caused. (3) A "good" man is one who considers the other man's pleasure (or pain) as equally as his own.
Mill says “Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure.” (541) The pleasure that people choose over a different pleasure, event though they may undergo more discomfort to get it is the pleasure deemed higher. Moreover, Mill states that people will always prefer the pleasure with the highest appeal, “few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for promise of the fullest allowance of the beast’s pleasures” (541). Since the human already has a higher level of pleasure than that of the animal, the human will never choose to go down a level even if they were promised endless amounts of pleasure
I would like the reader to understand this need to assess our action is not necessarily a conscious and deliberate action that we take, but more from a philosophical questioning when we discuss ethics and which ethical theory is the best. Also, I used in the above the word pleasure, but here pleasure is not referring strictly to our bodily sensation but more our satisfaction and well-being like what Mill has discussed “intellectual pleasures”. This does not mean pleasure here is not hedonistic in nature in the sense the word is used but rather an extension of the term. Lastly, to clarify for the reader the opposite of happiness is not sadness; it is in fact unhappiness or pain. Further, the words ethical and moral are being used interchangeably. The above argument presented can be extended as follows
John Stuart Mill claims that people often misinterpret utility as the test for right and wrong. This definition of utility restricts the term and denounces its meaning to being opposed to pleasure. Mill defines utility as units of happiness caused by an action without the unhappiness caused by an action. He calls this the Greatest Happiness Principle or the Principle of Utility. Mill’s principle states that actions are right when they tend to promote happiness and are wrong when they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. Happiness is defined as intended pleasure and the absence of pain while unhappiness is defined as pain and the lack of pleasure. Therefore, Mill claims, pleasure and happiness are the only things desirable and good. Mill’s definition of utilitarianism claims that act...
Nevertheless, while Utilitarianism is the key approach of Mill's politics, in On Liberty, Mill's ideal of utility departs from this discourse by disregarding the concept of natural rights. As mentioned earlier, individuality derives from personal development and self-realisation, 'grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive beings' (Mill, [1859] 2009, p.20), and this is the true utility of individuality. Thus, 'higher pleasures' (intellectual and moral) are valued more than base pleasures (physical or emotional), contributing to the society, and producing higher forms of happiness. In this sense, Mill 'left the true utilitarian spirit far behind' (Berkowitz, 200, p.148). Within his model, utility no longer accepts 'lower pleasures', embracing the most virtuous principles of individuality and liberty of
Compare John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all dealt with the issue of political freedom within a society. John Locke's “The Second Treatise of Government”, Mill's “On Liberty”, and Rousseau’s “Discourse On The Origins of Inequality” are influential and compelling literary works which, while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinker’s ideal state, present divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. The three have somewhat different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies. In order to examine how each thinker views man and the freedom he should have in a political society, it is necessary to define freedom or liberty from each philosopher’s perspective.
Comparison and Contrast of Kant’s and Mill’s arguments on their respective principles The utilitarian philosophy of John Stuart Mill and the Kantian theory could not be any more opposite as far as philosophy is concerned. While utilitarianism is a consequential position that is solely focused on the outcomes of actions, Kant is mainly concerned with the reason behind the occurrence of an action irrespective of the outcome of the action. Though both theories appear complex, they have sufficient reasons to act in their favor. However, a deeper analysis of the two theories reveals that utilitarian philosophy is inferior to the Kantian theory. John Stuart Mill’s utilitarian philosophy states that an action is good if it maximizes the good for
PS 313 Modern Politics Essay Number Two Jessica Arteaga-Ramirez Instructor – Dr. Jackie Vieceli John Stuart Mill on “The Principle of Happiness” John Stuart Mill was a dedicated philosopher on his work on ethics; his definition on the utilitarian principle. So Mill in his essay on human ethics writes about ways to seek utilitarianism or more specifically, the Greatest Happiness Principle. Mill explains that all action is for the sake of some end, and rules of action, it seems natural to understand, must take their whole character and color from the end to which they are obedient. When describing the “Greatest Happiness Principle”, Mill explains that it’s the creed that is accepted as the foundation of morals utility, that actions are
When talking about pleasure there needs to be a distinction between the quality and the quantity. While having many different kinds of pleasures can be considered a good thing, one is more likely to favor quality over quantity. With this distinction in mind, one is more able to quantify their pleasures as higher or lesser pleasures by ascertaining the quality of them. This facilitates the ability to achieve the fundamental moral value that is happiness. In his book Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill offers a defining of utility as pleasure or the absence of pain in addition to the Utility Principle, where “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill 7). Through this principle, Mill emphasizes that it is not enough to show that happiness is an end in itself. Mill’s hedonistic view is one in support of the claim that every human action is motivated by or ought to be motivated by the pursuit of pleasure.