Comparing Mill And Aristotle's Definition Of Happiness

To begin, one must learn what happiness means to Aristotle. He considers happiness to be simply the name of the good life. This is not to say that the good life produces

In Book 1 of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he argues that happiness is the best good, and the goal of an individual and of those leading and governing society. Here, happiness is understood as both living well and doing well, rather than the convention sense of happiness as an emotion. According to Aristotle, happiness is achieved though actions involving reason and in accord with virtue, or the best of the virtues of there are more than one. In this paper, I will provide a brief overview of the work and its author, then proceed to provide an overview of the ideas expressed and the argumentation supporting them, before finally performing an analysis and critique of the ideas expressed.

Quote: “Happiness is often misunderstood as a synonym for pleasure or as an antonym for suffering. But as Aristotle associated happiness with ethics….. In his ethics, Aristotle wrote, ‘if happiness is activity in accordance with excellence, it is reasonable that it should be in accordance with the highest excellence..” (Page 678).

John Stuart Mill and Aristotle both address the idea of happiness as the goal of human life. They explain that all human action is at the foundation of their moral theories. Mill addresses the Greatest Happiness Principle, which is the greatest amount of pleasure to the least amount of pain. Similarly, Aristotle addresses happiness through the idea of eudaimonia and human flourishing. According to Aristotle, eudaimonia is happiness, it is the state of contemplation that individuals are in when they have reached actualized happiness. Also referred to as happiness or human flourishing, it is the ultimate goal of human beings. Happiness is “living well and acting well.” He explains that once general happiness becomes recognized as the moral standard, natural sentiment will nurture feelings that promote utilitarianism. According to Aristotle, happiness is a state of being. Both Mill and Aristotle agree that in order to attain true happiness, human beings must engage in activities that are distinct to humans and that make them happy. Aristotle’s idea of eudaimonia and human flourishing is a more compelling argument than Mill’s for happiness and the final end because Aristotle explains that the virtues bring human beings to happiness.

Happiness is not the same to all people, depending on what kind of morals and ethics they have or what religion they followed. Aristotle’s definition of happiness “is a certain activity of the soul in accordance with perfect virtue.” (pg651) Aristotle used his power and greatness to influence others on the virtues and benefits of ethics and good morals. Some have different ideas on what happiness is to them. It could be money or possession, honor, pleasure, reason or health.

His views on true happiness were different then what we think happiness entails. Aristotle thinks that when we are children, we don’t know what happiness is, therefore children couldn’t be happy. I think he was trying to help us understand the reason for this is, happiness to them is more of luxury, such as playing outside or playing video games. Children haven’t endured stressors or any other life problems to fully gain happiness. As we mature in life, we see and understand the value of life and we find what makes us truly happy. These are the things we need, not desire. Aristotle’s way of seeking happiness is defined in a more deeper meaning of life. He used the Greek word Eudaimonia, which is occasionally translated as ‘flourishing’ or ‘success’ rather than ‘happiness’ (Warburton, 2012 pg.11). The choices we make, such as the type of person we want to be and the things we want to do in life is how we flourish and succeed. Although, our Eudaimonia can be affected by of life happenings, such as losing a loved one, our moral character, the way we respond and deal with these events is how we continue to have

For utilitarian philosophers, happiness is the supreme value of life. John Stuart 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. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and privation of pleasure” (Mill, Utilitarianism). This meaning that utilitarianism is determined by the calculation of happiness, in which actions are deemed to be good if they tend to produce pleasure, a form of happiness. On the contrary, they are evil if they tend to promote pain. Not only does Mill regard to the end product of happiness in actions, but also considers the motives of such actions. In his argument, Mill defends the idea that happiness as the underlying basis of morality, and that people desire nothing but happiness.

John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism and Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics both agree that happiness is essential to a good life but differ on what an individuals happiness consists of. They both recognized the importance of happiness to man and aimed at defining it. Aristotle believed that happiness comes from virtue. He argued that in order to be happy, man must complete his function (Aristotle). On the other hand, John Stuart Mill, argues that pleasure and freedom from pain are what make up someone’s happiness. He felt that man’s purpose in life is to find pleasure, and that pleasure will bring him happiness (Brink). The two philosophers spent much of their time contemplating what it means to be happy, and although they came across different views, they agreed on the overall idea that in order to attain true happiness, men should be engaging in activities that are distinct to

Happiness is an absolute state of mind, where a person can realize the ultimate contentment in their life regardless of circumstances. Happiness is the end of every desire, after which nothing is desirable. Socrates believes that happiness is a concept of morality and the stable state of ones’ mind, which is non-dependable on the material goods, resources and circumstances. Whereas Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics, states that “happiness depends on our self”, where both the material satisfaction and internal satisfaction is required to relish the human life in a happy way. Both philosophers are stressed upon the ultimate satisfaction of life and ‘supreme goods’. The only major difference between the Socrates and Aristotle’s definitions

“Happiness in particular is believed to be complete without qualification, since we always choose it for itself and never for the sake of anything else. Honour, pleasure, intellect, and every virtue we do indeed choose for themselves (since we would choose each of them even if they had no good effects), but we choose them also for the sake of happiness, on the assumption that through them we shall live a life of happiness; whereas happiness no one chooses for the sake of any of these nor indeed for the sake of anything else.” ( Aristotle 10-11) Aristotle is the other view of happiness that will be discussed. With him and the Stoics, they are both kind of similar due to both believe in virtue for happiness, Aristotle says virtue a different way and other ways about happiness. Aristotle along with the Stoic’s believe that virtues is the same, but Aristotle says this about virtue “and if we take this kind of life to be activity of the soul and actions in accordance with reason, and the characteristic activity of the good person to be to carry this out well and nobly, and a characteristic activity to be accomplished well when it is accomplished in accordance with the appropriate virtue; then if this is so, the human good turns out to be

In the text, Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle, but translated and edited by Roger Crisp, a few questions stand out for consideration. “What is happiness?” “What makes me happy and why?” In this text, Aristotle examines the main factors of happiness which consists of gratification, the life of money-making, the life of action, and the philosophical life. He explains what is needed for happiness and what it means to be a truly happy human being. In his definition of

From the beginning of their evolution, human beings have been searching for the meaning of happiness. While many may see this to be an inconsequential question, others have devoted entire lives to the search for happiness. One such person who devoted a great deal of thought to the question of man's happiness was the famous ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle. In his book The Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle discussed the meaning of happiness and what it meant to live a good life. He asserted that the devise which has been invented to create what is good for man is called "politics;" and it "uses the rest of the sciences"¦so that this end must be the good for man." (Aristotle, I, ii) Aristotle also identified four general means by which people live their lives in order to gain happiness, but stated that only one was a means by which a person could actually attain it. According to Aristotle, it was not political power, wealth, or worldly pleasures by which a person could achieve real happiness, it was living a contemplative life.

Mill writes of utilitarianism in the eponymous work Utilitarianism. According to his work utilitarianism is a means of deciding the moral value of actions. Mill’s theory takes a consequentialist view of actions, saying that the moral worth of an action is decided by the outcome, or consequence. This decision of moral worth is determined by whether the outcome maximizes happiness and minimizes the reverse of happiness. Mill writes that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” Happiness is defined as pleasure and the absence of pain according to Mill, and the action must be considered for the outcome it brings to the most people. This happiness, or pleasure and lack of pain,

According to the philosophy of happiness (14, 15, 16 & 17), Aristotle stated the factors that make happiness as good health, money, relationships and good moral behavior. Aristotle pointed out that happiness was the ultimate desire for human being leaving nothing more to be desired. The happiness is sought for its own sake unlike other things which are sought in order to achieve happiness. Aristotle understood that for an individual to be happy one must be of good morals and can suffer to achieve the greater happiness later in the long run. Many individuals believe that

Happiness is the fundamental objective of life. This bold statement is unanimously agreed upon among generations of people on every corner of our planet. However, the real question that has been contested for centuries is the true meaning of happiness? The true meaning of happiness is one of the most highly debated philosophy topics in history. Most famous are the writings of Aristotle and John Stuart Mill who both paint very opposing pictures of happiness. Mill believes happiness is obtained through pleasure and the absence of pain. On the other hand, Aristotle insist happiness is obtained through living a fulfilling, virtuous life. This passage will examine Aristotle 's and Mill 's views on happiness as well as give an opinion one which philosophical theory is most convincing.