This principle promotes a life of more pleasure than pain by choosing actions that produce more happiness. These are conscious actions made that follow a life of utility and act in accordance with the “Greatest Happiness Principle.” Though Mill’s critics would argue that Utilitarianism is not a reasonable foundation for morality by not fulfilling a life of happiness, creating selfish or expedient people, and reducing human experience to animals, I would have to disagree. This principle promotes happiness and pleasure for all, along with aiding individuals to be less selfish, and an even slate for people of all characters. I find the “Greatest Happiness Principle” to be a relevant and altruistic foundation of morality. There is an emphasis on lives containing more pleasure than pain under the rule that one person cannot put their own happiness above others.
It isn’t society’s duty to ensure everyone’s happiness, but rather to ensure that all people are given the opportunity to be happy. This means doing away with excessive income gaps and creating opportunity for advancement in society or social mobility, bringing the... ... middle of paper ... ...on the other hand, seeks to promote happiness as an end in itself. Reasonable and moderate versions of both theories really warrant the same action in most cases; for example, giving to charity and avoiding unfairly produced goods. The differences in suggested action only emerge in a few unique situations; the real distinction is in the underlying beliefs supporting the two theories. Deontology promotes a fair opportunity at happiness and self-advocacy, whereas Utilitarianism’s objective is the promotion of happiness.
Experience shows that such a policy consi... ... middle of paper ... ...le relates that the healthy exercise of virtuous function in a well-rounded life exploring personal interests and friendships is the cause of which happiness is the unavoidable and fitting effect. In other words, if you pursue the cause you will create the effect, but if you pursue only the effect circumventing the cause, you will miss both effect and cause entirely. “Aristotle rejects the Epicurean principle of pleasure; because, though a proof that isolated tendencies are satisfied, it is no adequate criterion of the satisfaction of the self as a whole. He rejects the Stoic principle of conformity to law; because it fails to recognize the supreme worth of individuality”(Hyde, 175). Even after this comparison it is difficult to contend which of these three theories would be a valid philosophy today.
We will reject this restriction, and instead allow any life of virtue and productivity to substitute for Aristotle’s life of study. One primary means of remaining active to achieve happiness includes loving friendships, which only happen to the virtuous. Thus human flourishing is living a life of virtue, activity, and productivity. Aristotle proposes that we have a single Idea of Good which is both complete and self-sufficient, chosen entirely for itself, and that end is happiness. He must establish these three claims: Idea of Good Claim 1) We have ends which we choose for themselves.
Rather, the good life for a person is the active life of functioning well in those ways that are essential and unique to humans. Aristotle invites the fact that if we have happiness, we do not need any other things making it an intrinsic value. In contrast, things such as money or power are extrinsic valuables as they are all means to an end. Usually, opinions vary as to the nature and conditions of happiness. Aristotle argues that although ‘pleasurable amusements’ satisfy his formal criteria for the good, since they are chosen for their own sake and are complete in themselves, nonetheless, they do not make up the good life since, “it would be absurd if our end were amusement, and we laboured and suffered all our lives for the sake of amusing ourselves.” Happiness can be viewed as wealth, honour, pleasure, or virtue.
Private good prevails over public good, as people tend to act in their self-interest. They want what they think will propel their life forward. Private good only gives us a temporary pleasure that influences us to want more. On the other hand, public good generates a sense of contentment to the individual, which can spread to the rest of society. Ideally, public good should be more pursued for an individual to embrace a good life as it encompasses happiness that private good cannot produce.
I think that there are alternative actions that people can take to naturally increase their happiness, and the happiness of our society overall. One major problem with decreasing suffering is that you cannot appreciate the good without the bad (Power, “The End of Suffering”). It is very important to go through struggles in order to fully appreciate good times, and be truly happy when things are going well. Good times would not truly feel amazing if they occurred all of the time. It has also been suggested that a
He claims that pleasure is the goal of life and that virtues are simply means. Epicurus was a consequentialist, he believed something is morally good because of something – a pleasure it may result in. So more generally when he claims that pleasure is the goal of the happy life, he means that it is ‘freedom from pain and…fear’ (ataraxia). He believes we have the need of pleasure only when there is an absence of pleasure from our lives, he also says that when we no longer feel pain, we don’t stand in the need for pleasure. 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.
The Stoic school differentiates between virtues and feelings, making it desirable to humans. Human reason tells us that it is desirable to attain certain virtues, some of which may not be the most physically pleasing. The Epicurean would be forced to say that virtues such as leadership and service would not lead to happiness if the pain outweighs the pleasure. The fact that humans have desires to pursue virtues that may cost pain, is proof enough of their superior school of thought.
The irrational soul has two aspects. The vegetative aspect, which deals with nutrition and growth and has little connection to virtue and the appetitive aspect, which governs out impulses. Virtue is critical to achieve happiness through some sort of learning and reasoning. Some may argue that happiness requires some external prosperity however this paper has proven that happiness is a good in itself. There may be perplexity as to whether happiness comes to be through divine allotment or even through chance however it is something that can be gained through learning or habituation.