Epicurus And John Stuart Mill

The Leading Doctrines of Epicurean philosophy state that ‘it is impossible to live the pleasant life without also living sensibly, nobly and justly, and conversely it is impossible to live sensibly, nobly and justly without living pleasantly’ (Epicurus, 1998b, p.53). Therefore, the good Epicurean believes in order to live virtuously, one must adhere to a pleasurable life. For Epicureans it is impossible to live virtuously and unpleasantly or vice-versa. In addition, Epicurus describes pleasure as our ‘primary native good’ (Epicurus 1998a, p. 51), implying that all human actions are driven by pleasures and by the avoidance of pains. Another imperative concept to Epicurean philosophy is Epicurus’ idea of the three fundamental aspects in attaining pleasure, those of friendship, freedom and an analysed life

“Happiness is in the enjoyment of man’s chief good. Two conditions of the chief good: 1st, Nothing is better than it; 2nd, it cannot be lost against the will” (Augustine 264-267). As human

Many theorist believe that happiness is the only important in people's life, and all that should matter to a person is being happy. The standard of assessing a good life is how much or quantity of happiness it contains. This openness of happiness, its generosity of spirit and width of appreciation, gets warped and constricted by the claim pretending to be its greatest friend—that only happiness matters, nothing else. Robert Nozick does not on the side of hedonistic utilitarianism, he gives several examples to show that there are other elements of reality we may strive for, even at the expense of pleasure. In this essay, I will focus on Nozick's opinion of the direction of happiness and the experience

In evaluating the philosopher’s goal of determining how to live a good life, Epicurean philosophers argue that pleasure is the greatest good and pain is the greatest bad. Foremost, for the purpose of this analysis, I must define the pleasure and pain described. Pleasure is seen as the state of being pleased or gratified. This term is defined more specifically by the subject to which the pleasure applies, depending on what he likes. Pain is the opposite of pleasure, which is a type of emotional or physical un-pleasure that results in something that the person dislikes. “Everything in which we rejoice is pleasure, just as everything that distresses us is pain,” (Cicero 1). Through this hedonistic assessment of pleasure and pain, epicurean philosophers come to the conclusion that, “the greatest pleasure [is that] which is perceived once all pain has been removed,” (Epicurus 1).

Mankind must by this time have acquired positive beliefs as to the effects of some actions on their happiness; and the beliefs which have thus come down are the rules of morality for the multitude, and for the philosopher until he has succeeded in finding better. That philosophers might easily do this, even now, on many subjects; that the received code of ethics is by no means of divine right; and that mankind have still much to learn as to the effects of actions on general happiness, I admit or rather earnestly maintain.

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.

Joel Kupperman in Six Myths about the Good Life: Thinking About What Has Value evaluates that humans as a whole want more comfort and pleasure in life as he it “may represent a tendency that is wired into normal human nature” (Kupperman 1). Through the explanation of pleasure as well as its arguable counterpart, suffering and the discussion of their values in addition to the counterargument of hedonic treadmill, Kupperman’s views about the role of pleasure in living a good life can be strongly supported and evaluated.

One might say, however, that some things are desired as a means to happiness. These, he says, are ‘ingredients’ to happiness. Happiness consists of these ‘ingredients’; they are a part of the happiness. Therefore, Mill claims that whatever is desired for its own sake is part of what happiness is, and each individual person desires different things to make them happy. They are means to the end of happiness. It is not possible, according to Mill, to desire something that will not provide some form of pleasure. Pleasure is happiness, and people only desire happiness, and happiness is therefore the only good.

The circumstance of one’s death determines the stature of the experience. The shared account of Epicurus and Lucretius unravel the merit of death, in the Philosophy and Death. There shared view is contrasted by the piece by Nagel. It is important to note that all three accounts are assuming the soul ceases to exist when the body perishes. Epicurus’ explanation is centered around death being nothing to humans, since the sense experience is deprived through death. This concedes, there is nothing in death and this should encourage one to seek happiness in life—the fear of death is irrational (Epicurus 164). Additionally, Lucretius furthers the point of Epicurus through his theory of the body and soul being one and mortal, therefore, death “is

Immanuel Kant refers to happiness as contentment (Kant, ) whereas John Stuart Mill refers to it as the pursuit of pleasure and the absence of pain (Mill, p.7). Kant does not base his ethics on happiness. Instead, he argues that morality is based on our duty as a human (Kant, ). To do what is right for Kant is to do what is instinctually moral without giving thought to the overall happiness. On the other hand, Mill does in fact use happiness as the bases for his ethics. He proposes that actions are right if they promote overall happiness and wrong if they promote the opposite of happiness (Mill, ). In this paper, it will be argued that Mill 's views on happiness are more reasonable than those of Kant 's because happiness should be the base for ethics.

We are a pleasure driven society always waiting to be amused. Self indulgence is a very natural aspect of human life. Does pleasure affect our lives? Will it make us happy at the end? Well, Aristotle will let us know what it means to be happy and have a good life in the Nicomachean Ethics. In the process, he reveals his own account of pleasure as well as other philosophers opposing views on the subject. The author highlights the key them by telling us that pleasure is not the chief good. However, it is an end in itself, which makes it good. In addition, pleasure is also not a process because it doesn’t involve any movement from incompleteness to completeness. According to Aristotle, happiness is

According to Epicurus, the purpose of life is attaining happiness “since, if [happiness] be present, we have everything, and, if [happiness] be absent, all our actions are directed towards attaining it.” Although that statement is undoubtedly true, people use different ways for finding happiness. Epicurus believes that the best guideline towards happiness is pursuing pleasure, which is “the alpha and omega of a blessed life”, and avoiding pain. That is why many people describe his approach as very hedonistic. However, he makes it clear that by pleasure he means the “absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul”, and not the “pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality”, which sets him apart from hedonism. What is more,

The role of pleasure in morality has been examined thoroughly throughout the beginning of philosophy and continues to be a questionable issue. With these in-depth examinations, some similar outlooks as well as differing views have been recorded. Many philosophers have dissected this important topic, however I intend to concentrate of the famous works of Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill. After meticulously analyzing each of the above philosophers’ texts, I personally prefer the position of utilitarian and Benthamite, John Stuart Mill. After comparing and contrasting the positions and reasonings of these philosophers, I will demonstrate my own reasons why I have chosen John Stuart Mill as the most established in his theory of the role of pleasure in morality.

Secondly, when we ask the question, what is freedom, we are not simply asking for a definition. We are seeking to find some truth in regards to liberty. We don’t ask this difficult question in order to get some sort of dictionary definition, we ask this question in order to gain insight. We ask this question to know how we should live our lives and how our government and other institutions should act in respect to liberty and our freedoms. Berlin’s two conceptions not only provide us with a definition, but also helps us determine how our society and laws should progress.

In the opening lines of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle states, “Every craft and every line of inquiry, and likewise every action and decision, seems to seek some good; and that is why some people were right to describe the good at what everything seeks.” Aristotle often wrote about happiness, but so did Epicurus. In a broad sense, Aristotle and Epicurus touched on similar points when discussing happiness. They both believed that happiness is the ultimate goal in life, and that all human measures are taken to reach that goal. While Aristotle and Epicurus’ theories are similar in notion, a closer look proves they are different in many ways. In this paper, we will discuss the differences between Epicurus and Aristotle in their theories on happiness, and expand on some drawbacks of both arguments. Through discussing the drawbacks with both theories, we will also be determining which theory is more logical when determining how to live a happy life.