When having good experiences, most people, if asked, would claim that they feel happy. However, if one decided to ask Martha Nussbaum, author of “Who is the Happy Warrior? Philosophy Poses Questions to Psychology,” she would most likely respond that she was feeling pleasured. In her article, she draws a restrictive line between pleasure and happiness. She introduces the viewpoints of many intellectuals who have spoken on the definition of happiness, and then offers her own opinions in regards to theirs. Her thoughts generally align with those of Aristotle, Plato, and the ancient Greek thinkers – the very ones she spent much of her higher education studying. Her main ideas, that happiness is too complex to be concretely defined and that pleasure is a feeling that we may experience while doing certain things, are well-explained and supported. She offers the idea that happiness is not an emotion – rather, it is a state of being that we should all hope to attain as a result of self-reflection. Nussbaum continually counters the beliefs proposed by psychologists, like the notion that happiness is a one-note feeling, or the concept that happiness is only influenced by positive emotions. In my essay, I will explain how Martha Nussbaum’s explanation of the complexities of happiness is superior, as well as how the ideas of two psychologists, Sonja Lyubomirsky and Daniel Gilbert, are faulty and disreputable. However, it is important to note that just because Nussbaum is the least wrong
Overall, deontology is based upon not just by following universal rules or performing what is ought to do, but by respecting human beings as rational beings as well. Deontology judges the ethical motive of an action not by its consequences, merely by the reasoning behind it.
However, although this provides us with a way of categorising pleasure, it does not bring us any closer to a theory of happiness, as there is no suggestion that it too has three different forms. From this I conclude that Plato considers the notion of pleasure to be insufficient as an explanation of happiness, and that these instead represent two different, but interrelated, concepts.
In evaluating the philosopher’s goal of determining how to live a good life, Epicurean philosophers argue that pleasure is the greatest good and pain is the greatest bad. Foremost, for the purpose of this analysis, I must define the pleasure and pain described. Pleasure is seen as the state of being pleased or gratified. This term is defined more specifically by the subject to which the pleasure applies, depending on what he likes. Pain is the opposite of pleasure, which is a type of emotional or physical un-pleasure that results in something that the person dislikes. “Everything in which we rejoice is pleasure, just as everything that distresses us is pain,” (Cicero 1). Through this hedonistic assessment of pleasure and pain, epicurean philosophers come to the conclusion that, “the greatest pleasure [is that] which is perceived once all pain has been removed,” (Epicurus 1).
Mankind must by this time have acquired positive beliefs as to the effects of some actions on their happiness; and the beliefs which have thus come down are the rules of morality for the multitude, and for the philosopher until he has succeeded in finding better. That philosophers might easily do this, even now, on many subjects; that the received code of ethics is by no means of divine right; and that mankind have still much to learn as to the effects of actions on general happiness, I admit or rather earnestly maintain.
In addition, Kupperman evaluates the value of pleasure through the Buddhist Argument as well as Csikszentmihalyi’s “flow” argument. Although it may seem that since we want more pleasure in life, that value of pleasure may depend on how much
Judgement of those who have experienced both physical and intellectual pleasures should guide us in deciding which pleasures are better. McCaleb should prefer pleasures of his higher capacities. A utilitarian asks what moves them to choose pleasure of higher capacities and that a sense of dignity moves
In part one of our book, “The Good Life,” we studied five different philosopher’s viewpoints on what is needed in order for a person to have a good, fulfilling life. They all included the concepts of pleasure and happiness to some extent in their theories, but they all approached the ideas in different ways. The two hedonists we studied, Epicurus and John Stuart Mill, place heavy emphasis on the importance of pleasure. They both believe that pleasure is a necessity in the ideal life. Jean Kazez agreed with their viewpoints in her theory and said that happiness was a necessity for a good life. Epicurus and Mill also argue that there is nothing else that we ultimately desire beyond pleasure and that it is an intrinsic good.
Deontologists would be of the opinion that something’s we are not expected to do, to perceive ourselves as moral agents. However opponents of the deontological view, such as Nancy Davies (1993), would argue that this is just “keeping ones hands clean”. Davies goes on to argue that,
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.
We are a pleasure driven society always waiting to be amused. Self indulgence is a very natural aspect of human life. Does pleasure affect our lives? Will it make us happy at the end? Well, Aristotle will let us know what it means to be happy and have a good life in the Nicomachean Ethics. In the process, he reveals his own account of pleasure as well as other philosophers opposing views on the subject. The author highlights the key them by telling us that pleasure is not the chief good. However, it is an end in itself, which makes it good. In addition, pleasure is also not a process because it doesn’t involve any movement from incompleteness to completeness. According to Aristotle, happiness is
Pleasure is described as a person’s emotion, passion, or spirit. Ross describes this scenario: one world is enjoying more because their circumstances are better. While the bad world is experiencing pain because their circumstances are going against them. Ross believes pleasure is intrinsically good because it leads to a better world, but not when pleasure doesn’t correspond with virtue. For instance, a person who takes pleasure at another person’s expense is not
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.
Hedonism is a form of wellbeing theory about what is best in our interest and what is good for us. According to hedonism, wellbeing relies solely on pleasure experienced. Although there are some hedonist theories that values extrinsic pleasure, in this essay we will be looking at hedonism that values pleasure felt from inside, i.e., hedonism as a mental state theory of wellbeing. This theory has met quite a numbers of objections. We will focus on one such popular objection developed by Robert Nozick. Nozick challenged the mental state theories of wellbeing with his thought experiment about an experience machine. This objection is sought out as ultimate weapon to “knockdown” hedonism (Weijers 2010, pp. 1). There has been attempts made to defend hedonism from this objection. Few of these responses will be discussed to determine if they are able to successfully overcome Nozick’s objection. Pleasure and pain mentioned will automatically refer to the intrinsic sensations, not physical activity nor as external
Where does Pleasure come from? What is your viewpoint on the basis of morality? Pleasure as we all know is some time of feeling of enjoyment or satisfaction. Human beings can be pleasured in many different ways such as mentally or sexually. Everyone has different but shared values of ethics and how happiness is needed to fuel morality itself. Some interesting gentlemen such, Friedrich Nietzsche and John Stuart Mills were important influential philosophers from the early 19th century. I’ll be comparing both philosophers’ theories of pleasure and ethics. Also, I’m going to focusing on the major similarities and differences they individually perceive on both topics. Now let us walk through both of their individual backgrounds to get familiar with their ideas and beliefs on society.