Happiness: John Stuart Mill vs Immanuel Kant

1354 Words3 Pages

Happiness. People go to any means by which to obtain the many varied materials and issues

that induce pleasures in each individual, and intrinsically, this emotion

remains the ultimate goal, John Stuart Mill, a nineteenth century philosopher,

correctly advocated the pursuit of happiness, and maintained the concept that

above all other values, pleasure existed as the final destination, Mill's

hedonistic views correctly and rationally identified a natural human tendency,

and his Utilitarian arguments strongly support the theory that above all else,

happiness is the most important dream to be fulfilled. Upon researching for

this paper, I came across a counter argument, which was based on metaphysics.

Immanuel Kant, in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, defends his strong

beliefs in the issue of a good will, and surfaces as MM's chief opponent on the

topic of metaphysics, The issue diminishes to a clash between emotions and

pleasures ve rses rationality and logic. Yet, what use is logic when the good

agent is miserable? Mill's stance within Utilitarianism exists as the more

favorable of the two beliefs, for happiness exist as the one intrinsically

favorable element, not an emotionless mind.

The main defender of the Utilitarian system exists within the Greatest

happiness Principle. Mill lived as a chief advocate of this concept, which

supports the idea that a decision is morally correct as long as it increases and

encourages pleasures and happiness. Kant, however, in his endless quest to

remain separate from emotions and thrive only on logic, would argue that

autonomy should be placed above happiness in a list of intrinsic values. A good

will, however, does not comfort an individual in any way if happiness does not

accompany this asset, Consider this example of a seemingly happily married

couple. The wife in this duo is madly in love with her husband fiercely loyal,

and completely happy with her marriage and children. The husband, however, as

wrongfully strayed, and had a brief, but damaging affair behind his wife's back.

Kant would argue that autonomy reigns over pleasure, and the woman should

therefore want to be informed of her husband's adultery, Mill would greatly

disagree. By revealing the secret of the past affair, the woman's happy world

would be instantly shattered. Her pride would diminish, her stability would

fall apart, and the children especially would be forced to view a nasty side of

their beloved father. In this case, individual control is greatly overshadowed

by the need for happiness. The husband is no longer acting unfaithful and the

family can easily continue to live in a happy realm, If the secret were to

Open Document