John Stuart Mill Discovering What You Think

John Staurt Mills, in chapter five of his autobiography , “ a Crisis in My Mental History: One Stage Onward, (1909-14) argues that people should be able to find their happiness. He supports his claim by first saying that happiness is something to survive by, then he states you need to ask yourself if your are happy or not and try to find your inner happiness. Mill's purpose is to reach out to people that happiness is an important in order to make people live a happy life. He creates a serious tone for people who are trying to find happiness.

To paraphrase, John Stuart Mill argues that we can never justify the silencing of people. Even in the case that all but one have the same opinion, that one with a differing opinion is still not justifiable to silence. (Mill 1) I will argue that the opinion of another should never be suppressed for any reason, because everyone is entitled to their own opinion no matter what it may be; because we all deserve basic freedom of speech; because the society as a whole loses as well as the individual being silenced, loses by the silencing of one’s opinion. (Mill 2)

“Happiness as a byproduct of living your life is a great thing….but happiness as a goal is a recipe for disaster.” One of the greatest things in life is to experience the feeling of happiness. Whether it’s because you’re surrounded by loved ones or you’re doing something you loved or something random happened that put a smile on your face it’s a great thing to feel happiness. What that quote is saying however is that by striving to get that amazing feeling we could cause more problems for ourselves. Although we all enjoy that feeling of happiness and don’t like when it goes away we have to realize that most of the time it’s not hard work that brings it back. What brings us the feeling of happiness is letting the unexpected happen, it’s sharing

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.

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.

True happiness comes only from one’s self and not from the help of others. True happiness comes from one accomplishing their personal life goals. In Ralph Waldo Emerson’s essay, “Self-Reliance”, he shows why not to conform to society and instead be individualized. He goes on to write “A political victory, a rise in rents, the recovery of your sick, or return of your absent friend, or some other quite external event, raises your spirits, and you think good days are preparing for you. Do not believe it. Nothing can bring you peace but

This paper will discuss John Stuart Mill’s argument about the freedom of expression of opinion, and how Mill justified that freedom. I will also discuss how strong his argument was and whether or not I agree with it. John Stuart Mill was a political economist, civil servant, and most importantly an English philosopher from the nineteenth century. Throughout his writing, John Stuart Mill touched on the issues of liberty, freedom and other human rights. In his philosophical work, On Liberty, he discussed the relationship between authority and liberty, as well as the importance of individuality in society. In chapter two of On Liberty, Mill examined the freedom of expression in more detail, examining arguments for and against his own.

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.

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.

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

In the excerpt of the autobiography “A Crisis in My Mental History: One Stage Onward” (1914) by John Stuart Mill, the author proposes that in order to find happiness, you must stop aiming for your own happiness and fix your mind on other things. He supports his interpretation of happiness by first claiming that concentrating on something else, you will find happiness by the way, then says “Ask yourself whether you are happy, and you cease to be so” (Mill 1), and finally he adds that you will obtain happiness without even thinking about it. Mill’s purpose is to inform the reader that they can focus on other things in life in order to find happiness or something close to it. He forms a deep tone for anyone who is trying to reach happiness.

But he will disagree with someone's opinion about that “happiness is an action”. He will probably say that it more than a action it an emotion. Happiness is not something that you can learn it is an emotion. Mill will say “The only ones happy are the people who have their mind set something than himself. Don't think that happiness is an action, it can be explained you just need to live through it.

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.

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.

“Absolute liberty is the absence of restraint; responsibility is restraint; therefore, the ideally free individual is responsible to himself” - Henry Brooks Adams. There has been great debate, past and present with regards to what constitutes as an individuals liberty. It has been subject to constant ridicule and examination due to violations of civil rights. Freedom, liberty, and independence are all important human rights represented within John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty.