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.
However, I find it hard to believe that injustice is better than justice. His first point in commending injustice essentially declares that justice is shaped out of injustice. He claims that the natural way of man is that each person wants to be superior and more prosperous in their life than anyone else and that they do not want anything negative to happen them. Since the repercussions outnumber the rewards an agreement is made to not benefit from the rewards nor experience the effects of injustice. The agreement is made between those who were prosperous and unprosperous because of the effects of injustice and the people that encounter both.
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.
Is Justice Profitable? Glaucon attempted to prove that injustice is preferable to justice. At first, Glacon agreed with Socrates that justice is a good thing, but implored on the nature of its goodness? He listed three types of “good”; that which is good for its own sake (such as playing games), that which is good is good in itself and has useful consequences (such as reading), and that which is painful but has good consequences (such as surgery). Socrates replied that justice "belongs in the fairest class, that which a man who is to be happy must love both for its own sake and for the results."
“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. Intelligence and even pleasure are worth having only on the condition that they do not require giving up one's fundamental moral convictions. The value of a good will thus cannot be that it secures certain valuable ends, whether of our own or of others, since their value is entirely conditional on our possessing and maintaining a good will. Indeed, since it is good under any condition, its goodness must not depend on any particular conditions obtaining. Thus, Kant points out
Since persons of appropriate moral character do good deeds, we would save ourselves the headaches of having to employ complicated theories especially if those theories do not often offer us very convincing results. A virtue theorist will try to show us that rule-following systems are open to more objections than that they are difficult to employ. Secondly, he will tell us that virtue ethics makes the whole task of living a moral life a good deal simpler and quite intuitive.
When one is only interested in satiating their appetite for food or sex, the pleasure acquired is minuscule when compared to the acquisition of mental and spiritual growth. Thus, attaining mental and spiritual growth will bring o... ... middle of paper ... ...attainment of happiness is oftentimes difficult, so we are morally justified in searching to essentially reduce the amount of unhappiness and pain experienced by the human beings impacted by some of our actions. According to Mill, the absence of pleasure is only acceptable when it is for the greater good of humanity. I agree with Mill’s hedonistic view of happiness. Mill believes that pleasure is a fundamental value because it promotes happiness, and diminishes the feelings of pain and unhappiness.
Therefore, justice is determined to be intrinsically valuable from the negative intrinsic value of injustice that was demonstrated, as well as from parts of the soul working together correctly. Glaucon also wants Plato to show that a just life is better than an unjust life. It has been shown that when the soul is in harmony, it only acts justly. It is in a person’s best interests to have a healthy soul, which is a just soul, so that the person can be truly happy. This means that by showing justice has an intrinsic value, it can also be concluded that it is better to live a just life opposed to an unjust life.
A Utilitarian would say that pleasure and only pleasure is intrinsically good. For example they would argue that health is only good as it makes us feel good and it is that which causes us pleasure, whereas being unhealthy makes us feel bad. There are a few minor problems with the application of the Utilitarian argument. First of all how can one measure happiness and decide which action would result in the gr... ... middle of paper ... ...is also the view that Utilitarians take - maximum happiness for the majority and minimum unhappiness for the majority. In conclusion, Utilitarianism does provide an adequate basis for making moral decisions to an extent as it is good and morally right to promote as much happiness as possible and the greatest good for the greatest number is therefore right.
Justice is said to be good in itself and good in its practical ends. It is educating desires, implementing the human faculty of reason. Justice is not the interest of the stronger, but more the interest of the weaker. An unjust life, which is dominated by the spirit, leads one to an addiction for material goods or possessions. A platonically just life leads to harmony, balance, and virtue.