Higher vs. Lower Pleasures

The pursuit of pleasure has also been condemned by critics as being little more than the promotion of one’s own interests, with no regard to the happiness of others. Mill disputes this as being narrow-minded, clarifying that the pleasure principle which forms the foundation for utilitarianism, “what is right in conduct, is not the agent's own happiness, but that of all concerned” (Mill 16). With this acknowledgment, however, comes the criticism that people cannot possibly be motivated by something as satisfying the collective good of society. Mill countered this by pointing out, “The utilitarian morality does recognize in human beings the power of sacrificing their own greatest good for the good of others” (Mill 16). To the objection that pleasure is an acceptable end is contrary to Christian principles because it is “godless,” Mill states, “If it be a true belief that God desires, above all things, the happiness of his creatures, and that this was his purpose in their creation, utility is not only not a godless doctrine, but more profoundly religious than any other” (Mill 21).

Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are known for their theories about utilitarianism. Both of them agree that the ethical right thing to do would be to maximize utility in any given situation. Yet, both of them disagree when it came to defninig pleasure. Bentham’s theory generalizes pleasure as just the same type of emotion felt by anyone and in any situation. Mill’s theory on the other hand stated that there are two different types of pleasure: the higher intellectual pleasure and the lower physical pleasure

An action is morally required in utilitarianism if it maximizes happiness for the greatest amount of people. Morality is based on the presence of pleasure, and the absence of pain. However, Mill categorizes pleasures into lower animal pleasures and higher human pleasures. Only humans can experience higher human pleasures uniquely but they can also experience lower animal pleasures as well. Mill argues that higher human pleasures significantly contribute

Mill states that the “utility or the greatest happiness principle holds that actions are right in portion as they tend to promote happiness…by happiness is intended pleasure” for “pleasure and freedom are desirable ends” (Mill, 7) He talks more about the utilitarian perspective, that is, we increase the levels of happiness for others. Following this logical equation, when pleasure is achieved it increases the intensity of happiness that was intended for others which constructs man’s dignity as a caring human being. Additionally, we attain the internal pleasure that renders power.

Since we cannot communicate in an effective way to these animals, some people find it hard to believe that animals really do experience subjectivity. However, it seems that every person can understand that animals such as dogs, cats, and primates seek pleasure and avoid pain. These two ideas are contradictions of each other because if an animal seeks to enhance its subjective experience, it must follow that they do have a similar subjective experience as humans. Not surprisingly, just like the mentally retarded children that were previously mentioned, even if these animals cannot solve complex math problems, read or write, or compose music that these animals are still subjects of life. It follows that if these animals are subjects of life that they should also fall into the domain of equality of

Now it is an unquestionable fact that those who are equally acquainted with, and equally capable of appreciating and enjoying both, do give a most marked preference to the manner of existence which employs their higher faculties. Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for the promise of the fullest allowance of a beast's pleasures; … It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is because they know only their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.[MillJS:1863]

“The greatest good for the greatest number”; that is how the British philosopher John Stuart Mill famously summarized utilitarianism (Shafer-Landau, 2012b, p. 120). He is not only one of the greatest utilitarians, he is also a hedonist. Hence, he believed that this greatest good can be achieved by focussing all action on attaining the greatest amount of happiness. Mill describes utility as holding ‘that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness’ ((Shafer-Landau, 2012a, p. 17). He defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain, and unhappiness as pain and the privation of pleasure. Hence, Mill argues that only pleasure is intrinsically desirable and only misery intrinsically bad (Shafer-Landau, 2012a, p. 120). All other desirable things are only desirable as means to promote pleasure or prevent pain (Shafer-Landau, 2012a, p. 18). Therefore, in order to refute Mill’s utilitarianism, one would have to show that there is something other than pleasure or the freedom from pain that is intrinsically desirable. First, Robert Nozick’s attempt to disprove utilitarianism and hedonism in the shape of his ‘experience machine’ will be explained. Next, Mill’s arguments in favour of utilitarianism and hedonism will be recapitulated in an attempt to answer the central research question: why does Nozick’s experience

Mill also argues that not all forms of pleasure are of equal value. Holding that quality of pleasures is certainly better than quantity, Mill states that, "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied" (598). More specifically, he is stating that there isn't a single intelligent human being would consent to be a fool, even if that person could be more satisfied with his lot as a fool. Being intelligent beings of "higher faculties" in this sense, Mill argues that it is in the everyone's best interest to abide by the utilitarian standard, or the pursuit of the greatest

Although animals act on many impulses and mechanisms, many animals have proven that they have the ability to adapt and survive, showing that they have the ability to think of when they are ill, or feel pain. Animals have the ability to survive illness and changing environments. If animals only acted on mechanism, then they would exacerbate illness causing their demise, or they would fail to adapt to the changing environments, causing them to become extinct. The survival of species throughout years, proves that animals do not just act on mechanism, but also have a mind that is “tightly jointed”.

One of the first misconceptions of Utilitarianism that Mill addresses is that it is often interpreted as the opposition of pleasure. Mill corrects this falsehood by stating the following: “Those who know anything about the matter are aware that every writer, from Epicurus to Bentham, be contradistinguished from pleasure, but pleasure itself, together with exemption from pain; and instead of opposing the useful to the agreeable or the ornamental, have always declared that the useful means these, among other things” (Mill, 2007, p. 5). Utilitarianism is, in

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.

In “Utilitarianism,” John Stuart Mill responds to several objections to the utilitarian view, but what exactly is the utilitarianism view. Utilitarianism is the view that an action is good to the extent that it produces the greatest possible overall happiness or utility. According to Mill, utility is the pleasure itself and the absence of pain. What this means is that pleasure and the absence of pain are the only things desirable as end in themselves. It's the only things that is inherently good. A good example of utilitarianism would have to be about the Trolley Problem or to me gay rights. With gay rights, legalizing gay marriage would cause the greatest amount of happiness. Therefore, any circumstance, event, or experiences is desirable only if it for pleasure.

Ergo, Mill distinguishes between higher and lower pleasures in order to respond to The Philosophy of Swine Objection. However, the distinction between quality and quantity is not new. Mill himself asserts that »utilitarian writers in general have placed the superiority of mental over bodily pleasures.«7 What is new in Mill’s theory is that he rejects to measure pleasure in any kind of numerical scale. His scale is an ordinal scale, in which pleasures are ordered in terms of preference, i.e. pleasure A is greater than pleasure B and so on. The problem with that measurement is that it is not transitive, which means that if pleasure A is greater than pleasure B and pleasure B is greater than pleasure C, it does not follow that pleasure A is greater than pleasure C, simply because we are not talking about quantity but quality. For example, I may prefer banana ice cream to chocolate ice cream, and I may prefer chocolate ice cream to strawberry ice cream, but I may also prefer strawberry ice cream to

John Stuart Mill adds more arguments to Bentham’s view of Utilitarianism, which are important factors to consider when discussing this topic. Utilitarianism is the idea to promote the greatest happiness to the general society as opposed to oneself (Mill, 114). Each pleasure is said to have its own difference in quality, so people are able to make the choice between two pleasures (115). Mill believes mental pleasures reign more important than bodily pleasures seeing that bodily pleasures are seen as inferior to the greater good (115). It takes a higher grade of pleasures to make a human satisfied and pleased. “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied” (116). An important factor for choosing higher pleasures over inferior pleasures is that you only have time for one pleasure and if you chose the inferior pleasure it will be wasted (117). However the standards of what is right and wrong are not decided by the person’s own happiness but the happiness of everyone who is concerned in the decision (117). Being a Utilitarian forces you to stay an

In Utilitarianism, Mill addresses many objections to his general moral theory of promoting happiness and decreasing pain. Through Mill's rebuttals to the objections, his ideas about well-being become clear. Although his moral theory is important to understand the basis upon which his ideas about well-being sit, they miust stand alone so that one can determine to which theory of well-being Mill adhered. Mill's ideas about well-being spring from his explanation of the difference between contentment and true happiness. Leading up to his ultimate discussion of the distinction, Mill attempts to clear up misunderstandings about what pleasure and happiness are. The swine objection involves misunderstandings about pleasure and the difference between animals and humans, and Mill addresses it in clearing up the misunderstandings. The objection claims that