Kant And Mill 's Views On Freedom And Civil Rights

According to Mill, pleasure should depend on quantity and not quality. For instance, the people who had any feeling of moral obligation are the most desirable pleasure, because those people do not think pleasure as right or wrong (38). “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied” What Mill is trying to say in this assertion is that human beings should not sacrifice their pleasure for others. Also, Mill states that men lose their aspiration when they are too focused on inferior pleasure. If a human does not have no pleasure or feel no pain, then he would not know how to love or desire virtue. When there is pleasure, there will be painful as

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.

Mill says that ethical decisions should be based on pleasure. Therefore when he states that pleasure is the sole requirement for happiness, it is questionable because pain indirectly affects happiness. Pain is an indirect factor because it is not the object of one’s happiness but it is an obstacle, which you have to overcome. If you were to avoid all pain, then how would you truly ever know what pleasure feels like? Real pleasure comes only after experiencing pain. If a person always wins the tic tac toe game then the pleasure they feel turns into an expectation. Thus it is not true pleasure. If the loser of the tic tac toe game after 20 years finally wins he can feel the desired pleasure that he was seeking.

Mill continues by explaining that once this misunderstanding is corrected, those that comprehend utility, or ‘the greatest happiness principle’, appreciate that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill, Chapter 2). By this account, pleasure and the absence of pain are the only things desirable as ends in themselves; the only inherently “good” things. Consequently, all other experiences and situations are merely desirable to the extent that they provide a basis or springboard for such pleasures. However, it is still important to understand that utilitarianism doesn’t simply require people to follow what makes them happy in a personal sense. Instead, in Mill’s theory morality is determined by the greatest happiness principle: a moral act is that

Mill is noted for his theory on utilitarianism. According to Mill, utility is equated with happiness, and utilitarianism can be referred to as the Greatest Happiness Principle. This principle states that “the ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as such as possible in enjoyments” (Mill, p. 961). And, I agree this is true. Happiness can be attained by any living creature, but on a multitude of different levels. Mill posits in his text that happiness is greater in potential for humans than it is for lower animals, as humans are able to attain a superior mental form of happiness over bodily forms of happiness. Due to this limitation, Mill believes few humans would

In his work On Liberty, Mill placed much emphasis on individual liberty and its vital role in political society. To Mill, this phrase may be defined as the liberty of the individual to be the final judge over his actions; to decide what is right and wrong and to act upon that standard. On a secondary level, it also implies one's freedom to pursue one's own individuality. Mill believed in a society in which each individual leads his own distinctive life according to his own unique talents; unfettered by regulations upon thought, opinion, actions etc.

According to hedonism, pleasure is the most important good and the ultimate goal in life. Epicurus states that pleasure is in intrinsic good. Mill agrees with him, but along with Kazez, says that happiness is also an elemental good. In Epicurus’ theory, he defines pleasure as the absence of pain. Mill also uses this definition, but applies it to happiness as well. Therefore, we can agree on a definition for the two terms that makes sense: happiness and pleasure are both the absence of pain. According to Mill, happiness and pleasure are correlated. He says that happiness is the existence of pleasure. This is what drives all of our actions and desires. We desire things because it will bring us pleasure in some way and we avoid things because

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.

Mill separates pleasure into higher and lower as that he thinks some pleasure like higher is more for the soul and are long term and will benefit you as a person and the lower pleasures which are more material and offer short term pleasure but not the sort that lasts. He use the saying ‘Better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfies; Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied‘ to show the differences between the two pleasures as that you can be a human

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.

Kant and Mill held distinct moral theologies that reflected what they valued the most. While Kant justified actions that followed his two rule code of universal application and selflessness, Mill viewed any action as moral as long as it benefited the most individuals (x). In a similar way, Kant and Mill both made decisions that benefited the individuals around them. Their different moral theories both encouraged the practice of making decisions that provided the needs (Deontological theory) and happiness (Utilitarianism) of others (x). However, Kant’s shortcomings and flaws helped distinguish Mill’s greater theory that would revolutionize the world. For example, the more individuals make decisions according to Mill’s theory, the more happiness

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.

Mill writes of utilitarianism in the eponymous work Utilitarianism. According to his work utilitarianism is a means of deciding the moral value of actions. Mill’s theory takes a consequentialist view of actions, saying that the moral worth of an action is decided by the outcome, or consequence. This decision of moral worth is determined by whether the outcome maximizes happiness and minimizes the reverse of happiness. Mill writes that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” Happiness is defined as pleasure and the absence of pain according to Mill, and the action must be considered for the outcome it brings to the most people. This happiness, or pleasure and lack of pain,

Mill also states that an existence with the possibility of happiness must be “…to the greatest extent possible, secured to all mankind; and not to them only, but, so far as the nature of things admits, to the whole sentient creation (234)”. Utilitarianism not only focuses on the attainment of happiness, but the prevention of pain and unhappiness. (230)

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.