For the Stoics, this guidance from reason leads us to certain things which give us pleasure such as wisdom or even other virtues we may feel. This life of virtue in accordance with reason is completely sufficient for living a happy life and in no way is it affected by an action’s consequence. The Stoics stress the importance of reasonable action in pursuance of a specific outcome without giving worth to the specific outcome itself (Sharples 107). If a man follows his reason to obtain an outcome, the outcome in question plays no role in the assignment of happiness, only the use of his reason. Ext... ... middle of paper ... ...ific actions that foster happiness.
In John Stuart Mill’s work Utilitarianism, Mill is trying to provide proof for his moral theory utilitarianism and disprove all the objections against it. Mill defines utilitarianism as a theory based on the principle that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness" (Ch. II, page 7). He calls this the “greatest happiness principle. Mill says, “No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable, except the fact that each person desires his own happiness, so far as he thinks it is attainable.
Deontology promotes a fair opportunity at happiness and self-advocacy, whereas Utilitarianism’s objective is the promotion of happiness. While happiness is indeed a great thing, I worry that by only looking at the result of an action Utilitarian actions could far too easily infringe upon one’s right to self-determination. I prefer Deontology for this reason and for its objective of respecting human autonomy and mandate to treat humanity always as an end and not as a simple means.
This difference, Berkeley held, precisely marks the distinction between things. What a person merely imagines exists in their mind alone and continues to exist only so long as he or she thinks of it. But what is real exists in many minds, so it can continue to exist whether they perceive it or not. The existence of sensible objects requires that they be perceived, but it is not dependent exclusively on one person's perception of them. In fact, the persistence and regularity of the sensible objects that constitute the natural world is independent of all human perception, according to Berkeley.
An action could be morally wrong or morally right, depending on what action brings out the best outcome out of the... ... middle of paper ... ...s theory, often called hedonism. There is no benefit as to having utility as a single standard in which all applies to pleasures, because if you have one measurement to all it signifies that happiness is the same for all. If one’s end goal of human action is pleasure and that is all, how can one type of pleasure be essentially better than another? Compare the pleasure of living a life happy but completely deluded, seen from the perspective of “The Matrix” heroes of a life with happiness in which you are completely aware of on your own. The measurements of pleasure wouldn’t be the same because they are two completely different environments.
Philosophers, as well as man, can only benefit from the scrutiny placed on thought. Without the knowledge that philosophy can provide, the world would be a very simple place based exclusively on materialistic views. The old saying that ignorance is bliss would unmistakably be true. Man would continue in his everyday life, unaware of the chance that he is missing. Think about what a waste such a world would be, when the possibility for undiminished intelligence and open mentality is right beyond the baggage that man carries around with him.
The judgement of taste is based solely on the opinions and feelings of the person affected by the object being viewed. This judgement is and can only be completely objective depending on individual feeling. Based on person judgement, the opinion formed while viewing a subject does nothing to contribute to the area of teaching or learning since the sentiment appeals to the senses. Only our personal interest to an object will determine our reactions and emotions felt from its existence. Beauty can only be determined by a person’s own personal feelings.
In utilitarianism, the word utility is used in a very formal sense and not in the dry vernacular of everyday language. At first glance it would seem that unity and pleasure cannot coexist in Mill's world. But Mill argues that attainment of pleasure is the very center of utilitarianism. According to his Greatest Happiness Principle, any action that promotes happiness and prevents pain is right and any action that produces the reverse of happiness is wrong. For utilitarianism the entirety of moral inquiry lies in the possession of happiness.
However this pleasure is what he calls “disinterested.” Meaning that the subject does not need to desire the object in order to experience pleasure from it, nor must the object generate desire. We take pleasure in something simply because it is beautiful, rather than judging it beautiful because we find it pleasurable. He argues “the satisfaction which we combine with the representation of the existence of an object is called ‘interest’”(Kant 420) while “taste is the faculty of judging of an object or a method of representing it by an entirely disinterested satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The object of such satisfaction is called beautiful... ... middle of paper ... ...functions of judging is represented by the distinction between the determinative and the reflective power of judgment Kant is looking for an answer to the question: is a judgment of taste subjective? The requisites for fine art are imagination, understanding, soul and taste.
In general, Mill’s utilitarian theory is an impartial one since it does not regard a person’s happiness on his own; rather it focuses on the happiness of all individuals collectively. He believes that people do not have any other desires other than pleasure and all our actions lead to an end we desire (happiness). Mill describes happiness by means of pleasure and the absence of pain. So all our actions should be to maximize happiness or pleasure, and minimize pain as much as possible. Such a moral theory is a consequentialist theory since it determines whether an act is good or bad from its consequences.