How Does John Stuart Mill Define Happiness

John Stuart Mills, in chapter five of his autobiography, “A Crisis in My Mental History: One Stage Onward,” (1909-14) reasons that happiness is not to be looked upon as a goal, but as a by product of one’s involvement in other things for purposes not related to finding happiness. He supports his theory by giving examples that when you make happiness something you are conscious about you become quite unhappy, then he states when we fix our minds on other objects we will find happiness along the way, then stresses we are not to dwell on happiness as it comes through the “air you breathe” when you are not thinking about it. Mill’s purpose is to get people to set their minds upon something else in order to show us that happiness can only be found when we stop looking for it. He establishes a serious tone for people everywhere.

What is happiness? People have agonized over this question for centuries. Let me start this essay by answering a somewhat easier question: what isn’t happiness? Happiness is NOT feeling good all the time. Happiness is a combination of human emotions and states of mind. Exploring this state of being has consumed the philosophical minds of the ages and will continue to do so for ages to come.

John Stuart Mills, in chapter five of his autobiography “A Crisis in My Mental History: One Stage Onward”, (1909-14), suggest that mankind can never find happiness when it is their goal, they can only find it when their minds are fixed on something unrelated to the topic. He supports his claim by first stating, that happiness is only found when we have our minds fixed on something else than our happiness, then he says that when we are conscious of our feelings and when we feel happiness that is when we feel the most misery and sorrow, and finally he suggests that happiness will come naturally as long as we don’t dwell on the feeling. Mill’s purpose is to express that we are not supposed to be focused on happiness, it will come just as naturally as the air we breathe, but if we do we will just find ourselves in a state of misery. He establishes a very informative serious tone for anybody anywhere.

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

Mill defines happiness as the production of happiness and the absence of pain. Unlike Kant's focus on the individual, Mill believed in considering the happiness of everyone that might be affected by the action. People should seek the greatest amount of happiness possible for all involved.

Which is why he says that children cannot be happy. In some ways I agree with what he is saying but in others not so much. I sort of agree in what he says about happiness being achieved after a person has had a complete life, mostly because I feel that some people have had a very rough life and when everything’s said and done they say that they are happy and that they don’t regret anything. But, I disagree in what he says that children cannot be happy. Happiness is one of the basic emotions one has. A child, in my opinion, can be very happy. Yes, that emotion can wane in some occasions but I feel like children have a simpler look on life and its very simple for them to be

A similar article, published by Scientific American entitled "Not Everyone Wants to be Happy" and written by Jennifer Aaker and Emily Smith, mirrors Brooks' same sentiment in regards to the unhealthy obsession those who live in western society have with both acquiring and maintaining happiness. A study was conducted in regards to displaying how different cultures define happiness within their own lives. The study concluded that Americans place much more emphasis on personal happiness, which is opposite of the feelings expressed by those of East Asian descent. Individuals living in the East seem to place more emphasis in the happiness of the whole rather than the individual parts that compose it. In fact, this study showed Americans are so concerned

The concept of happiness is one that has been explored and debated by many different philosophers. Two of these philosophers are John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant. Mill, in Utilitarianism defines happiness as pleasure without pain. He builds upon this idea of happiness when establishing his moral philosophy, stating that the action that would bring about the maximum amount of happiness is the most moral action. On the other hand, Kant establishes happiness as well-being and a satisfaction with one’s condition. Kant, however, argues that happiness is too fully based upon one’s own personal experience to use as a grounds for a universal moral philosophy. Therefore, Kant rejects the idea of using happiness, instead using practical reason, as

John Stuart Mill differed from Jeremy Bentham in his version of utilitarianism in the concept of pleasures being a mental state caused by acts or pleasures being an act in itself that isn’t a means to anything but an end in itself. While Bentham believed pleasures were mental states caused by actions only, Mill believed that actions could cause pleasures but also that acts could be pleasurable and virtuous in themselves and did not always need to be a means to

I disagree with John Stuart Mill’s opinion however the evidence given in his article goes both ways. Himself agrees and disagrees, I disagree with his statement “those only are happy (I thought) who have their minds fixed on some object mankind.” I disagree because I feel that he is relating to himself as a person being happy,he doesn't really think about anyone else's opinion. Although he gives a bit of a hint to where he explains that you aren't happy with what you receive but something that you feel very kindly, he words it very differently.

It has been said that individuals can't buy happiness. Whereas some people say that they can buy happiness, such as John Stuart Mills. According to Mill, people who focus on their own happiness instead of the happiness of others will not become happier (Chapter V). In other words Mills is saying that to be happy individuals can buy objects for others in need and be happier than buying things for themselves. Mills has a large number of amount points for the reason that once people ask themselves if they are happy and try make themselves happy they will not become happier.

Happiness: an emotion that is very complex and has many different theories surrounding it, yet is so simple that children talk of being happy. People all over the globe search for this elusive feeling, only to come up short. We all know what happiness is, so the question is how do we obtain this desired feeling? Philosopher John Stuart Mill argued that happiness did not come from looking for it, but rather it came along the way while focusing on some object other than your own happiness. I have a different belief: happiness comes from making the best of your situations and focusing on the positives rather than the negatives.

Another reason why I agree with John Stuart Mill’s is, everyone has a different idea of happiness because if you were to ask your family, friend or anyone, they would have a different answer from everyone because everyone has their own idea of happiness. If someone were to ask me it wouldn't be the same as anyone else's because i'm living a happy life for myself and no one else. Everyone doesn't have one specific thing that makes them happy, it's not the things people receive or buy to feel that they are happy, but in reality just getting things your way and what you want isn't the true value of living a very happy and successful life. John Stuart Mill's illustrates that “without dwelling on it or thinking about it, without forestalling

“Happiness cannot be traveled to, owned, earned, worn or consumed. Happiness is the spiritual experience of living every minute with love, grace and gratitude.” -- Denis Waitley

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.