How Does Stuart Mill Define Happiness

In the article "Why Happiness is Healthy" by Elizabeth Landau, she elaborates about why people want to be happy. Landau agrees with this concept and approves Happiness' choice as a lifestyle. She explains the main reasons why you should consider happiness in your life. Then she introduces the origins of happiness and uses logos to prove scientifically how genes and environment affect the levels of your happiness. She defends herself using a naysayer using money and time, people think that money can't buy them happiness but it can satisfy them, she then proves that money doesn't make you happy but has the power to satisfy you. Lastly her last paragraph consists of her proving how machines can't replace human emotions and encloses

People often create their own happiness. My friend, Hannah, when she mad, she thinks and does things that are funny. Creating your own happiness can be beneficial. Cheerfulness comes from inside you shown these examples, of mice and men, Harry Potter, and my friend Emily all created their own happiness.

Are materials describing what makes the human race happy or is it deeper than that? Darrin M. McMahon’s article, “In Pursuit of Unhappiness”(2005) claims that humans have different ways of finding unhappiness because no one person is exactly the same. He supports his claim by throwing a quote making a second view on things, “We seldom think of those words as an order.” then Darrin brings a survey on the 1950’s that shows we weren’t happier than now, finally giving into his research he puts everyone down still with an order. A purpose of Darrin’s is to show that humans are all different but feelings haven’t changed over the past few hundred years.

There is more to happiness than just synthesizing it. Even Dan Gilbert is very clear about this.

In the Netherlands he encounters an interesting point when he meets scholars of the World Database of Happiness or the WDH. This organization focuses on using hard facts and statistics to measure the happiness of multiple countries around the world. This seems to be a mistake, since happiness is generally supposed to be some magical feeling that is constantly sought

There are no pure states of mankind. Whatever else happiness may be, it is neither in having nor in being, but in becoming. What the Founding Fathers declared for us as an inherent right, we should do well to remember, was not happiness but the pursuit of happiness. What they might have underlined, could they have foreseen the happiness-market, is the cardinal fact that happiness is in the pursuit itself, in the meaningful pursuit of what is life-engaging and life-revealing, which is to say, in the idea of becoming. A nation is not measured by what it possesses or wants to possess, but by what it wants to become” (Ciardi, par. 10). Even though I disagree most part of his article because it seems like only the Americans always un-happy, and don't know what happiness is. I think not only americans but other country can be un-happy in my own opinion. Despite the article, I really like the last paragraph because it “is not measured by what it possesses or wants to possess, but what it want to become” to be happy. Meanwhile, choosing Aristotle theory to help define happiness to support Dalai Lama and John Ciardi's

In the article by Darrin McMahon, “In Pursuit of Unhappiness he says, “Those only happy,” he became to believe,” who have their minds fixed on some object other than their

John Stuart Mills, in his autobiography, “ A Crisis in My Mental History: One Stage Onward” (1909-14), argues that you are only happy if you are thinking of something other than your own happiness. He supports his claim by first giving examples on how you can not focus on your happiness, then ask if you ask yourself if you are happy you won’t be happy, then he says if you think about being happy you will exhaust yourself and not find happiness. and finally if you don’t focus on only your happiness you will inhale happiness with the air you breathe. Mills purpose is to show his opinion on happiness in order to show that we will only find happiness when we stop looking for it. He uses a serious tone for general public.

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.

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.

Many people aspire to be happy. Fulfilling the goal of being happy is so deeply engrained in our society, that people are constantly trying to find the perfect formula to achieve happiness. But is this constant search of happiness causing the exact opposite? In A Crisis in My Mental History: One Stage Onward, writer John Stuart Mill believes so. Mill’s perspective on happiness argues that for someone to achieve the goal of happiness, one must not actively search for happiness, but to have their “minds fixed on some object other than their own happiness.” Knowing this, I agree with the John Stuart Mill’s views about happiness.

He mentions that although it is possible to do without happiness, as we have seen it persist in society, this is not as it should be. He explains that there is no reason why all people cannot have a happy life, besides the limitations we’ve set upon ourselves on our own doing. Shortly after, he brings up the example of martyrs and how although their voluntary sacrifice of achieving their own personal happiness may benefit others, it is noble ending rather than a happy ending. He

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.

Have you ever thought about what makes you genuinely happy? According to the philosopher John Stuart Mill’s Autobiography Chapter V, A Crisis in My Mental History: One Stage Onward the way to be genuinely happy is to focus on another phenomenon that can improve humanity. I agree with John stuart Mill’s thinking on the topic of how to become happy, because in today’s world it is crucial that our mental state is in good shape in order to survive the tough economic society and the strive of becoming wealthy. Happiness is achieved by having a focus on something other than happiness itself and to have a part in improving the world and humanity. In the view of Johnny Barnes in the Mr. Happy Man documentary he focused on making people in the streets

Along with other noted philosophers, John Stuart Mill developed the nineteenth century philosophy known as Utilitarianism - the contention that man should judge everything in life based upon its ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. While Bentham, in particular, is acknowledged as the philosophy’s founder, it was Mill who justified the axiom through reason. He maintained that because human beings are endowed with the ability for conscious thought, they are not merely satisfied with physical pleasures; humans strive to achieve pleasures of the mind as well. Once man has ascended to this high intellectual level, he desires to stay there, never descending to the lower level of