This philosophical study will argue in favor of the greatest good of society in John Stewart Mill’s Utilitarianism and Aristotle’s “Supreme Good” in Nichomachean Ethics. Mill’s Utilitarian philosophy provides an important statement on the promotion of happiness for the greater good of society. In this point of view, every citizen should be conscious of the greater happiness of society through individual choices. In a similar way, Aristotle also argues for the “supreme good” as part of following the virtues in a civil society. These philosophies define the importance of preserving civil society by practicing virtuous acts that support the overarching stability of human communities. Mill and Aristotle agree on the necessity of the individual acts as part of the binding virtue in the preservation of happiness for the greater good. In essence, this study will argue in favor of the greatest good of society in John Stewart Mill’s Utilitarianism and Aristotle’s …show more content…
In this manner, Aristotle then defines the “supreme good” as part of the larger responsibility of individuals to maintain the greatest happiness of all: “It is clear that this one ultimate End must be the Good, and indeed the Supreme Good.” These factors define the overarching necessity of achieving the greater good. This aspect of “individual acts” is part of Aristotle’s focus on the question of the greater good of society: “Will not then a knowledge of this Supreme Good be also of great practical importance for the conduct of life? If this be so, we ought to make an attempt to determine at all events in outline what exactly this Supreme Good is.” In this manner, Aristotle would agree on the necessity of the individual responsibility to utilize virtues to find the greatest good in society through the vantage point of the “supreme good” defined by
Aristotle develops his virtue ethics by first considering ends and goods. He claims that “every action and decision, seems to seek some good” (Shafer-Landau 2013, 615). Aristotle states that we pursue certain things because of the benefits it brings itself and other consequences it may bring. Aristotle suggests that this is the same for goodness. We must pursue what is good for good itself and for any other benefits it may bring. Furthermore, Aristotle suggests that through pursuing the good, we are able to determine the best way of life (Shafer-Landau 2013, 615).
In John Stuart Mill’s literature (575-580), he describes a system of ethics which he dubs as Utilitarianism. Mill’s Utilitarianism is unique because it is a Consequentialist theory – it focuses on the consequences of things, rather than individual processes involved. In other words, Mill argues that, for an action to be morally correct, it must solely contribute towards benefitting the greater good and maximizing humanity’s happiness. I argue that this ethical theory is flawed and cannot be used as a standard to gauge the morality of our actions because, since Utilitarianism is so entrenched on the outcomes that are produced, it has the potential to sanction clearly wrong actions, so long as they promote the general welfare. In this critique,
Simply defined, happiness is the state of being happy. But, what exactly does it mean to “be happy?” Repeatedly, many philosophers and ideologists have proposed ideas about what happiness means and how one attains happiness. In this paper, I will argue that Aristotle’s conception of happiness is driven more in the eye of ethics than John Stuart Mill. First, looking at Mill’s unprincipled version of happiness, I will criticize the imperfections of his definition in relation to ethics. Next, I plan to identify Aristotle’s core values for happiness. According to Aristotle, happiness comes from virtue, whereas Mill believes happiness comes from pleasure and the absence of pain. Ethics are the moral principles that govern a person’s behavior which are driven by virtues - good traits of character. Thus, Aristotle focuses on three things, which I will outline in order to answer the question, “what does it mean to live a good life?” The first of which is the number one good in life is happiness. Secondly, there is a difference between moral virtues and intellectual virtues and lastly, leading a good life is a state of character. Personally and widely accepted, happiness is believed to be a true defining factor on leading a well intentioned, rational, and satisfactory life. However, it is important to note the ways in which one achieves their happiness, through the people and experiences to reach that state of being. In consequence, Aristotle’s focus on happiness presents a more arguable notion of “good character” and “rational.”
Aristotle’s goal in, “The Nicomachean Ethics,” is to argue that there is such thing as a chief good
John Stuart Mill argues that the rightness or wrongness of an action, or type of action, is a function of the goodness or badness of its consequences, where good consequences are ones that maximize the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. In this essay I will evaluate the essential features of Mill’s ethical theory, how that utilitarianism gives wrong answers to moral questions and partiality are damaging to Utilitarianism.
Aristotle begins his ethical account by saying that “every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and every choice, is thought to aim for some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim” (line 1094a1). Though some things might produce higher good than others, Aristotle looks for the highest good, which he says we must “desire for its own sake” and our actions are not decided on some other goal beyond this good itself (line 1094a20-25).[1] This highest good is then realized to be happiness (line 1095a16-20).
One of Aristotle’s conclusions in the first book of Nicomachean Ethics is that “human good turns out to be the soul’s activity that expresses virtue”(EN 1.7.1098a17). This conclusion can be explicated with Aristotle’s definitions and reasonings concerning good, activity of soul, and excellence through virtue; all with respect to happiness.
In utilitarianism, all moral actions promote the greatest happiness in the greatest amount of people. This is done indiscriminitley, meaning that every person counts as one unit and nobody 's happiness is placed over another 's. Indeed, Mill believes that all humans are seeking, as an ultimate end, happiness, and all other pursuits are simply means to that end. He defends this view by raising other possible ends and showing that they are all a part of happiness, rather than a separate puruit. He also shows why, once we have attained a higher sense of intelect and other faculties, no human, save for extreme circumstances, would ever choose to revert to a simpler state of mind, despite the fact that these simpler people may be more satisfied with their lot than those of higher faculties. He believes this a general principle, although sometimes a lack of willpower can cause a person to seak a lower principle. Mill solidifies this sentiment with the statement: better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied"
The Nicomachean Ethics, written by Aristotle, represents his most important contribution within the field of Ethics; it is a collection of ten books, covering a variety of interesting topics, throughout the collection. Aristotle tries to draw a general understanding of the human good, exploring the causes of human actions, trying to identify the most common ultimate purpose of human actions. Indeed, Aristotelian’s ethics, also investigates through the psychological and the spiritual realms of human beings. Without pretending to exhaust with too many references, it would be rather useful to focus on the most criticized part of the philosopher’s attempt, which is also the very starting point of his masterpiece, identified as eudaimonia (happiness, well being) and ergon (function), in Aristotelian terms.
1. Utilitarianism was described by J. Bentham as the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Utilitarianism is a holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the amount of happiness. It is therefore a form of consequentialism, which means that the moral value of an action is determined only by its outcome, so one can only weigh the morality of an action after thinking about all its potential consequences. Utilitarianism focuses more on the happiness of the greatest number whereas Aristotle focuses more on the happiness of the individual person Virtue ethics developed by Aristotle which is a moral theory that focuses on the development of virtuous character. In virtue ethics, character is the key to the moral life, for it is from a virtuous character that moral conduct and values naturally arise. Aristotle believes that the highest goal of humanity is the good life or Eudaimonia which means happiness and human flourishing. Developing virtues is the way to achieve a rich and satisfying life. According to him, virtues make
In its political philosophy utilitarianism provides an alternative to theories of natural law and the social contract by basing the authority of government and the sanctity of individual rights upon their utility, or measure of happiness gained. As an egalitarian doctrine, where everyone’s happiness counts equally, the rational, relatively straightforward nature of utilitarianism offers an attractive model for democratic government. It offers practical methods for deciding the morally right course of action - “...an action is right as it tends to promote happiness, wrong as it tends to diminish it, for the party whose interests are in question” (Bentham, 1780). To discover what we should do in a given situation, we identify the various courses of action that we could take, then determine any foreseeable benefits and harms to all affected by the ramifications of our decision. In fact, some of the early pioneers of utilitarianism, such as Bentham and Mill, campaigned for equality in terms of women's suffrage, decriminalization of homosexuality, and abolition of slavery (Boralevi, 1984). Utilitarianism seems to support democracy as one could interpret governments working to promote the public interest and welfare of citizens as striving for liberty for the greatest amount of people. While utilitarianism at its heart is a theory that calls for progressive social change through peaceful political processes, there are some difficulties in relying on it as the sole method for moral decision-making. In this essay I will assess the effectiveness of utilitarianism as a philosophy of government by examining the arguments against it.
As a philosophical approach, utilitarianism generally focuses on the principle of “greatest happiness”. According to the greatest happiness principle, actions that promote overall happiness and pleasure are considered as right practices. Moreover, to Mill, actions which enhance happiness are morally right, on the other hand, actions that produce undesirable and unhappy outcomes are considered as morally wrong. From this point of view we can deduct that utilitarianism assign us moral duties and variety of ways for maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain to ensure “greatest happiness principle”. Despite all of moral duties and obligations, utilitarian perspective have many specific challenges that pose several serious threats which constitute variety of arguments in this essay to utilitarianism and specifically Mill answers these challenges in his work. These arguments can be determinated and analyzed as three crucial points that seriously challenges utilitarianism. The first issue can be entitled like that utilitarian idea sets too demanding conditions as to act by motive which always serves maximizing overall happiness. It creates single criterion about “being motived to maximize overall happiness” but moral rightness which are unattainable to pursue in case of the maximizing benefit principle challenges utilitarianism. Secondly, the idea which may related with the first argument but differs from the first idea about single criterion issue, utilitarianism demands people to consider and measuring everything which taking place around before people practice their actions. It leads criticism to utilitarianism since the approach sees human-beings as calculators to attain greatest happiness principle without considering cultural differ...
J.S. Mill’s principle of utility is explained as actions are right as they tend to gain happiness, and wrong as they tend to reduce happiness. Mill defines happiness as, “pleasure and the absence of happiness is pain.” He argues that pleasure can differ in quality and quantity, and that more complex pleasures are ranked higher. Mills also places people’s achievements of goals, such as a virtuous living, should be counted as part of their happiness. When Mill states that the principle of utility is the “First Principle” of morality he is ranking the principle of utility highest because that in order to know what the boundaries of morality are, it is necessary to know how actions should be accounted. The first principle dictates the rest of the principles of morality because it illuminates what the right thing to do is, and that is to maximize happiness. Happiness is the goal of morality, and this is why Mill believes that morality must have a first principle.
Consequently, if indeed there are several kinds of constitution, it is clear that there cannot be a single virtue that is the virtue-of a good citizen. But the good man, we say, does express a single virtue: the complete one. Evidently, then, it is possible for someone to be a good citizen without having acquired the virtue expressed by a good man" (1276b). What Aristotle doesn't tell us is who is better off. Is it sufficient to be the good citizen or is it definitely more satisfying to be the good man? The good man is recognizably superior to the good citizen. The good man possesses everything that is good. He does what is just and what is just is beneficial to himself and to those around him. His soul is completely well-ordered and, therefore, cannot allow for his desires to take over and commit evil or injustice of any kind.
Aristotle feels we have a rational capacity and the exercising of this capacity is the perfecting of our natures as human beings. For this reason, pleasure alone cannot establish human happiness, for pleasure is what animals seek and human beings have higher capacities than animals. The goal is to express our desires in ways that are appropriate to our natures as rational animals. Aristotle states that the most important factor in the effort to achieve happiness is to have a good moral character, what he calls complete virtue. In order to achieve the life of complete virtue, we need to make the right choices, and this involves keeping our eye on the future, on the ultimate result we want for our lives as a whole. We will not achieve happiness simply by enjoying the pleasures of the moment. We must live righteous and include behaviors in our life that help us do what is right and avoid what is wrong. It is not enough to think about doing the right thing, or even intend to do the right thing, we have to actually do it. Happiness can occupy the place of the chief good for which humanity should aim. To be an ultimate end, an act must be independent of any outside help in satisfying one’s needs and final, that which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else and it must be