Mill On Happiness

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.

Smart argues that ‘happiness’ suggests a level of approval for the person that is ‘happy’. In the example I gave above, though the old colleagues of the scientist can see that the scientist is leading a pleasurable life, they would be unlikely to describe him as ‘happy’ due to their disdain and regret for this life he has chosen. Moreover, ‘happiness’ tends to draw focus to the idea of the pleasure being over time for example reading poetry over playing pushpin is more likely to lead to long term contentment and happiness in one’s life. This semantic peculiarity does not add much to the theory of Mill in contrast to Bentham but rather seems to intuitively highlight the significant differences between them.

One can be happy because they won the lottery, or one can be happy simply because someone smiled at them. Happiness is not hard to acquire, but establishing a consistent and enduring happiness in one’s life is almost impossible if one does not have a strong mental foundation built by a sense of self-fulfillment and independence. Modern society openly ridicules any form of self-content. It is filled with ever-changing advertisements for new ways to become happy quickly. Modern society has essentially spread a narcotic-like addiction to fads; overloading our brain with spikes of serotonin then leaving us in a state of withdrawal. In this society, one is no longer allowed to simply achieve set goals and live the rest of their life in peace; they must evolve, or they will be left behind. Society power and influence is growing at such a rapid rate that there will be a point where no human

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.

In his argument about the ultimate norm of morality, Mill claims that the utilitarian must claim that happiness happens to be the one and only thing that is desirable in itself. He also claims that the only proof of desirability is desire and goes ahead to give an argument that happiness happens to be the one and only thing that should be desired (Selling, 2016). Most importantly, Mill argues that an individual does desire his own happiness for its personal reasons and that makes happiness to be desired by and becomes desirable for its own sake as well as for humanity as a whole. Additionally, Mill goes ahead and tries to defend his postulation that happiness happens to be the only thing

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

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.

There are always times in which an individual will find herself in a situation in which she has to make the morally right decision. The right decision is not always the easiest one. This is the case for Kelly’s current situation with her ill father who does not have much time left. Two options lie in front of her. She could choose to lie to her father to prevent any form of suffering before he passes away or she could choose to tell her father the truth though it may bring him distress before he passes away. A Kantian believes that Kelly should reveal the truth to her father no matter the distress it might bring him before his life comes to an end. On the other hand, a Millian believes that Kelly should lie to her father to prevent any suffering that may be brought upon him should he

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.

When you hear the word happiness, what is the first thing that comes to mind? Do you think of material possessions like designer clothes and accessories, the newest iPhone with the highest possible storage capacity, or a shiny red supercar? Do you think the amount of money you have or your current financial status has an effect on how happy you are? Plenty of college students, myself included, would associate happiness with possessing items like these or just having a lot of money in general. In today’s society, one common belief about social class is that the richer and more money or things that one has, the happier this will make them. This belief is reinforced by countless advertisements we see and hear everywhere, whether that be on

Mill thinks happiness is the ultimate aim of human efforts, which is also, simultaneously, the absense of pain. Furthermore, the greater the fulfillment of this happiness principle among the mass, the greater it can be fulfilled within the individual. Of course, by “happiness,” Mill does not mean hedonism, as this of course