Mills Pleasures

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.

The pursuit of pleasure has also been condemned by critics as being little more than the promotion of one’s own interests, with no regard to the happiness of others. Mill disputes this as being narrow-minded, clarifying that the pleasure principle which forms the foundation for utilitarianism, “what is right in conduct, is not the agent's own happiness, but that of all concerned” (Mill 16). With this acknowledgment, however, comes the criticism that people cannot possibly be motivated by something as satisfying the collective good of society. Mill countered this by pointing out, “The utilitarian morality does recognize in human beings the power of sacrificing their own greatest good for the good of others” (Mill 16). To the objection that pleasure is an acceptable end is contrary to Christian principles because it is “godless,” Mill states, “If it be a true belief that God desires, above all things, the happiness of his creatures, and that this was his purpose in their creation, utility is not only not a godless doctrine, but more profoundly religious than any other” (Mill 21).

Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are known for their theories about utilitarianism. Both of them agree that the ethical right thing to do would be to maximize utility in any given situation. Yet, both of them disagree when it came to defninig pleasure. Bentham’s theory generalizes pleasure as just the same type of emotion felt by anyone and in any situation. Mill’s theory on the other hand stated that there are two different types of pleasure: the higher intellectual pleasure and the lower physical pleasure

In her book Meaning in Life and Why it Matters, Susan Wolf does not focus on this perennial question people have been asking over the vast confusion of human history rather she gazes her view at the question of how people seek and maintain meaningful lives. Seeking of meaningful life poses the question of motives that has driven us to engage in. Wolf judges the answer from philosophical point of view. Utilitarianism, a paradigm of teleological theory, accepts pleasure as the ultimate meaning of life. J. S. Mill argues, ‘pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things that are desirable as ends, and that everything that is desirable at all is so either for the pleasure inherent in it or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain’ [1863:10] Man demands and pursues the supreme good which comprises both virtue and happiness. Mill’s uses of the term pleasure confined it only in this physical world. Kant, on the other hand, uses it even after death. Virtue and pleasure, duty and inclination, are, according to Kant, heterogeneous notions. Their unity cannot be achieved within the narrow span of our life in this world. We, therefore, conceive immortal life for us. Hence, we seek pleasure not only in this material world, but also in the super sensible world as it is

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.

“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

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.

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 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.

In this paper I will argue that Aristotle’s conception of eudaimonia disproves Mill’s utilitarian view that pleasure is the “greatest good.” The purpose of this paper is to contrast Aristotle’s and Mills views on the value of happiness and its link to morality. First I will describe Aristotle’s model of eudaimonia. Then I will present Mill’s utilitarian views on happiness and morality. Lastly, I will provide a counterargument to Mill’s utilitarian ethical principles using the Aristotelian model of eudaimonia.

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.

John Stuart Mill argues in Utilitarianism that higher pleasures are unique to human beings. Higher pleasures are those pleasures that require some minimum of cognitive capacities to enjoy. More specifically, higher pleasures are intellectual pleasures while lower pleasures are sensual pleasures. Mill argues that animals are not capable of experiencing higher pleasures because animals are not aware of their higher facilities; animals lack the conscious ability to be curious, to achieve a sense of self-worth from volunteering, or to hold a deep and intellectual conversation. Mill successfully argues in Utilitarianism that higher pleasures are not only distinct and unique to human beings,

In Utilitarianism, Mill addresses many objections to his general moral theory of promoting happiness and decreasing pain. Through Mill's rebuttals to the objections, his ideas about well-being become clear. Although his moral theory is important to understand the basis upon which his ideas about well-being sit, they miust stand alone so that one can determine to which theory of well-being Mill adhered. Mill's ideas about well-being spring from his explanation of the difference between contentment and true happiness. Leading up to his ultimate discussion of the distinction, Mill attempts to clear up misunderstandings about what pleasure and happiness are. The swine objection involves misunderstandings about pleasure and the difference between animals and humans, and Mill addresses it in clearing up the misunderstandings. The objection claims that