Is It Better to Be a Human Dissatisfied Than a Pig Satisfied

Mill disagreed with Bentham as he believed in ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ pleasures that can be derived from actions and promoted those pleasures which developed an individual’s skills and abilities rather than short-term pleasure seeking actions. He placed emphasis on individual development and flourishing.

Mill’s pleasure principle was disputed by both philosophers and theologians because of its apparent lack of association to a code of morality. To this, Mill contended that there can

Mill, like Nietzsche, is against uniformity of thinking which results in mediocrity. He inveighs against the tyranny of the majority, which imposes its values on everyone. He believes public opinion stifles individuality, and that society imposes its values on others to its detriment. Mill argues that it is crucial to listen to and permit other perspectives in order for creativity and individuality to flourish. So while Nietzsche might view Mill’s construct as part of the problem, Mill similarly clearly advocates for challenging and struggling against accepted or singular norms of thinking. He argues that “whatever crushes

Mill has an “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” standpoint. If a person commits a terrible crime, they are nowhere near reaching a desirable end, nor do they have capacity to be virtuous, as Aristotle would say. If somebody is guilty of murder, then life in jail is too mild of a punishment for the crime he committed. It goes the other way around too. If somebody is guilty of theft, then life in jail may be too hard of a punishment for that particular crime. Mill believes the only efficient punishment is one that is exactly equal to the crime. He doesn’t think a murderer should be allowed to live on with the potential to murder again. Another thing Mill focuses on is general responses among a society. He believes the only way to find desirable pleasure is to ask people and get a general response. So if you asked the family of a murder victim what they would like to see happen to the murderer, a probable general response would be to have him sentenced to death as well, and that is exactly what should happen.

The usefulness of his calculus, and the way Bentham defined pleasure came into question from one of his students, J.S. Mill who found his approach too general and simplistic. Mill rejected Bentham’s idea that all pleasures are the same and can be compared, he felt that there were different types or ‘levels’ of pleasure, and that some are more desirable or valuable than others. He decided that some pleasures or more desirable and meaningful than others, that there are

“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

Explain in your own words the logic of Mill’s argument, and critically discuss whether happiness should be the criterion of morality.

In fact, however, the pleasures differ quite a lot, in human beings at any rate. For some things delight some people, and cause pain to others; and while some find them painful and hateful, others find them pleasant and lovable…But in all such cases it seems that what is really so is what appears so to the excellent person. If this is right, as it seems to be, and virtue, i.e., the good person insofar as he is good, is the measure of each thing, then what appear pleasures to him will also really be pleasures…and if what he finds objectionable appears pleasant to someone, that is not at all surprising: for human beings suffer many sorts of corruption and damage. It is not pleasant, however, except to those people in these conditions.

Thus, he introduces the idea of higher and lower pleasures. The higher pleasures are those of a higher quality of that are determined by “competent judges.” This competent judge is someone who is acquainted with both the higher and lower quality pleasures.

One objection that Mill replied to was that there isn’t enough time to really weigh the options before needing to act. His response is that we effectively have the result of prior human knowledge from those lived before we did.(517) He’s clear in stating that this doesn’t make that true, but because it is the result of human reasoning and thought it can be improved upon.(517)

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.

As stated above, consciousness requires some form minimum of cognitive capacities, animals lack any form of cognitive capacities, leaving higher pleasures distinctively unique to human beings. The central question in the article is whether or not animals experience a form of basic consciousness, and if so, what is the content of their awareness, a question that can help us better understand them, their way of life, and what type of pleasures they experience. Referring back to Mill's Utilitarianism, Mill argues that higher pleasures are more desirable and more valuable than lower pleasures. Utilitarian writers, in general, agree that higher pleasures are superior to lower pleasures because they place an emphasize on mental pleasures over bodily pleasures. And in general, Utilitarian writers agree that although you can enjoy more lower pleasures, you cannot consider quality alongside quantity; the level of your happiness should depend on the quantity of your pleasures.

There are three main objections against utilitarian view in which Mill responds to. The first being that, the utilitarian standard of right and wrong is “too high for humanity” (Utilitarianism, 418). In the reading it states that, “it is exacting too much to require that people shall always act from the inducement of promoting the general interests of society” (Utilitarianism, 418). This is implying that that it would too high of a person to have the ability to always make a decision based on how it will affect people in a society. According to Mill, this objection is misunderstanding the meaning of utilitarianism. The meaning of Utilitarian view does not say that people

In fact, differences in the quality of a pleasure must be considered as well as differences in quantity. Mill argues that differences in quality are to be measured in preferences rather than quality. "Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure."6

The argument Mill makes is characterized by a few premises. The first is that society is known to enforce opinions and beliefs upon the individual in hopes of maintaining a utilitarian good based upon a common set of truths that the society believes in. Due to this, individual liberty is often suppressed for the good of everyone else. When someone has dissenting views, they will be suppressed by the majority. Yet Mill’s believes that dissent is good because it helps to progress society by disconfirming our believes through listening and reasoning with those who are different. By addressing different views, people are able to develop their own ideas and as a society we are able to reach a better understanding of a utilitarian truth. For Mill, humans are not