Mills states that it "… is not the agent's own greatest happiness, but the greatest amount
of happiness altogether…". This leaves no room for opinion because then the greater
number would not be contemplated. So who does Mills leave to decide to whom may
plan what the greater happiness is? It would be left up to people with lots of knowledge
and wisdom. Mills thinks that the so-called experts would be able to decide the greatest
happiness. But must be " strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator ".
At some point his idea makes sense. To live in a strict utilitarian society you would need
someone to decide what the greater good would be for all. I would to some extent
…show more content…
To ignore what
your common sense tells you to do or at least to put it aside while making the decision
would be a hard thing to do. I don't think a whole lot of people would be willing to
actually do this. I know for but me it would be very hard to do. I'm not sure I would want
to. But then again to look in on a perfect world and see I would have to agree it could
possibly produce many favorable outcomes.
Question 2
Of the two formulations we discussed of Kant on the Categorical Imperative then I
would go along with the second idea it seems to be the most workable and valuable. This
concept states that humans are the ends in themselves(mere means). Though this point
seems to be very simple and idealistic, it could be sensible. Kant believes that the
preservation of life is the number one duty in sensible individuals. This not only includes
our lives, but also trying to help others in their lives. This is what he meant when
discussing that humans are not means but ends. This goes on that humans aren't used to
be methods to get somewhere or something by other humans. If this point was taken and
used it could prove to be useful. People wouldn't be taken advantage of or manipulated.
Unless it was some kind of mutual agreement.
Human beings as ends include another aspect of life. That no cause if worth taking a
human life to fix it. I would say I do agree with this
Along with other noted philosophers, John Stuart Mill developed the nineteenth century philosophy known as Utilitarianism - the contention that man should judge everything in life based upon its ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. While Bentham, in particular, is acknowledged as the philosophy’s founder, it was Mill who justified the axiom through reason. He maintained that because human beings are endowed with the ability for conscious thought, they are not merely satisfied with physical pleasures; humans strive to achieve pleasures of the mind as well. Once man has ascended to this high intellectual level, he desires to stay there, never descending to the lower level of
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” As you know these words come from the preamble of the Declaration of Independence, perhaps one of the greatest documents ever written. However, I do have a little problem with the last four words sentence, “the pursuit of Happiness” because I believe it actually sends an easily misinterpreted message.
The Glass Castle is a book written by Jeannette Walls and is about her childhood growing up in the 1960s and 70s. Throughout the book, Jeannette shows that money does not determine happiness. At various points in her difficult life, she is happy with only the essentials. Jeanette feels she is rich in her family for many reasons. They also teach her to be strong and resilient and give her something to look forward to. Jeannette sees wealth as being subjective, and as an adult, feels guilty for having money when her parents do not. In the end, Jeannette realizes it's her family and their perseverance that determine happiness.
sense, yet this is not the issue, and not how Mill thought it should be
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.
People travel through life with what seems like a single goal: to be happy. This may seem like a selfish way to live, however this lone objective is the motivation behind nearly all actions. Even seemingly selfless deeds make people feel better about themselves. That warm feeling experienced while doing charitable acts can be described as happiness. But what is authentic happiness? There is an endless possibility of answers to this question, and man seems to be always searching for the solution. Although one may reach his or her goals, there is always still something one strives for in order to be happy. In the book Stumbling on Happiness, Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert takes the reader through
Mill highlights that a, a fool or pig, can only have a different opinion because it knows only one side of an issue. But a Socrates or human, knows both sides of an issue, and therefore can have a different opinion based on valid justification- which can only be achieved haven taken all aspects into regard. Therefore Mill's argument is a good one because it logically argues that people who have experienced both types of pleasures (intellectual
Throughout Lorraine Hansberry’s A Raisin in the Sun, we see the positive and negative effects of chasing the American Dream. Hansberry expresses her different views on the American Dream through the characters and she portrays the daily struggles of a 1950 black family throughout A Raisin in the Sun. In this play, she is able to effectively show the big impact that even small decisions can make on a family. Hansberry shows the many different attachments that come with the fulfillment of this American Dream. Throughout A Raisin in the Sun, each family member has their own pursuit of happiness, which is accompanied by their American Dream.
For our Economics subject, we watched The Pursuit of Happyness, a movie based on Chris Gardner, a salesman who was not making that much money and eventually experiences homelessness with his five-year old son. He faces problems when his wife is unwilling to accept his goal to become a stockbroker and leaves him. However, he perseveres even under all this stress.
Explain in your own words the logic of Mill’s argument, and critically discuss whether happiness should be the criterion of morality.
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.
Is there really one definition for what it means to be truly happy? A simple joy such as a piece of candy may bring happiness to one; whereas something much larger might be the determining factor for another’s happiness. The definition of happiness is one of the most debated questions among many different philosophers and people through out the ages. Aristotle and John Stuart Mill are two philosophers who had similar ideas regarding the definition of happiness, but argued different theories on what constitutes happiness and what is required to be truly happy.
When it comes to predicting how something will make you feel in the future, you will most likely be wrong. In the book Discovering Pop Culture, edited by Anna Romasino, is the article “The Futile Pursuit of Happiness”. In the article, author Jon Gertner talks about how people think certain things bring them happiness but aren’t as fulfilling as they may think. Gertner gives examples by writing about four men that have been questioning how people predict what will make them happy and how they feel after it happens. Among these men are a psychology professor Daniel Gilbert, psychologist Tim Wilson, economist George Loewenstein, and psychologist Daniel Kahneman. Gertner uses facts from scores of
there, but to explain it to where everyone agrees to the idea would be hard to
7. Kant’s ethics gives us firm standards that do not depend on results; it injects a humanistic element into moral decision making and stresses the importance of acting on principle and from a sense of duty. Critics, however, worry that (a) Kant’s view of moral worth is too restrictive, (b) the categorical imperative is not a sufficient test of right and wrong, and (c) distinguishing between treating people as means and respecting them as ends in themselves may be difficult in practice.