The Greatest Happiness Principle Essay

Now it is an unquestionable fact that those who are equally acquainted with, and equally capable of appreciating and enjoying both, do give a most marked preference to the manner of existence which employs their higher faculties. Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for the promise of the fullest allowance of a beast's pleasures; … It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is because they know only their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.[MillJS:1863]

Another strength of Mill’s argument is his choice of words surrounding the ‘lower’ pleasures. We are told of a “satisfied” pig, and a “content” fool (pp.139-140). These sound like oxymoron, but also remind us of the much higher capacity for enjoyment of more intelligent people. A fool is easily contented, for he can easily exhaust the pleasure sources available to him. For the intelligent man or woman, the myriad of options available to them ensures they can never be lazily “content”.

If a human being’s quality of pleasure is not very satisfactory, he or she will be more easily satisfied in the long run than a person that seems to have it all. Mill writes, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” Human beings are much more superior to animals in many ways, but primarily in the level of intellect that we possess. A human being should always be striving to achieve more and therefore we should not always be satisfied. Therefore, as educated people, we should not succumb ourselves to pleasures of a fool or an animal.

In the first part of the essay, I am going to present John Stuart Mill’s point of view and defense of utilitarianism, and in the second part of the essay I am going to argue for it. I conclude my essay by formulating a basic summary of my argument supporting Mill’s proof that happiness is indeed the only intrinsic good.

Human beings tend to pursue lower pleasures, sometimes even injuring themselves, even if they are aware that health is the greater good. In fact, Mill stated that lower pleasures are predominant because easier to achieve. For this reason, individuals succumb to temptations, even if the final pleasure is at a lower level than the higher pleasures, which of course, are harder to achieve. I agree with Mill’s claim, because individuals are prone to abandon the achievement of higher pleasure given the fact that they are harder to reach in meanings of time and commitment. As a consequence, people give in to lower pleasures, which may not be preferred, but they are easier and quicker to access.

In the second chapter of “Utilitarianism”, John Stuart Mill argues against the misconceptions held by detractors of utilitarianism through definition. Mill defines utilitarianism through the concept of the Greatest Happiness Principle, in which the outcome which will serve the happiness and utility of the most people, thus creating the greatest overall happiness, remains the optimal choice; through this definition, Mill rejects the misapprehension that utilitarianism opposes pleasure, showing the true intent in utilitarian philosophy lying within pleasure itself, as the Greatest Happiness Principle advocates a universal pleasure in lieu of pleasure for only one’s self. Morality within utilitarianism, according to Mill, sees the concept of

2. Mills ends up at that conclusion because he believes that a dissatisfied human knows the extent to which the satisfied pig lives its life. The satisfied pig has low capacities of enjoyment so it has a high chance of its needs being met, but a human has a higher capacity of enjoyment so he/she will learn to live with not having all of their satisfactions met. A human would rather have high expectations rather than low ones, because

John Stuart Mill wrote his work Utilitarianism in response to the Hedonist ideologies present throughout the 19th century. In it, he discusses his views on the responsibility of society to seek the greater good through higher pleasures. I feel that this work could be supported through an individualistic approach that fulfills both responsibilities to the self and society.

Mills’ main purpose for this essay was to base it on a principle: “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the absence of pain.” He explains that some pleasures are higher than others. Mill means when he says “It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a swine satisfied” that a person must choose higher pleasures to be happy, I can say that I do agree with his claim based on my own personal experiences.

Utilitarianism is the moral theory that emphasizes “the greatest happiness for the greatest number” (Clark, Poortenga, 2003). John Stuart Mill was a philosopher who believed in the principles of utilitarianism. He believed that humans desire for happiness and pleasure; therefore humans would be motivated to act morally in order to obtain that happiness (Clark, Poortenga, 2003). Mill’s approach has strengths, weaknesses, and is not fully equipped to hold true for all circumstances.

Although originally postulated by Jeremy Bentham, this theory that advocates for the greatest good {sunnum bonum}flourished under the formulation of John Stuart Mill. A commonly simplified principle, the greatest total net good is similar to that of a mathematical formula {taking all of the effects of an action, applying them to everyone affected, and finally subtracting the totality of bad effects from that of the relatively good ones}. Assuming that true “happiness” is a state of pleasure that is lacking any elements of pain, Mill introduces the concept of Higher and Lower Pleasures in order to differentiate between stimulating intellectual sentiments and mere physical sensations. (Mill, 6)

Though, a lot of critics have emerged from the view by Mill, whose main intention was to stress on one thing that he believed was the source of morality – pleasure. Critics argue that this does not in any way fully protect individual rights. The measure of everything cannot be standardized and in that case his meaning of the term ‘happiness’ does not fully depict the depth in which it can reach. Hence, happiness is such a complex term and it is less depicted by the theory. In an attempt to counter the critics, Mill manages to make the theory a more complex moral theory.

If those who are to be educated strive for what is the best for the general population, the society will achieve the greatest pleasure and minimal pain, thereby achieving the utility. Reversely, unhappiness—pain—of the society derives from the lack of “mental cultivation (Mill, Utilitarianism, 105), which leads to egocentricism. They are correlated in a way that those who are uneducated and therefore does not have the sense of dignity as a “higher faculty” would be ignorant of the utility; therefore, they would not contribute to produce utility in any circumstances, Mill would blame.

In our everyday lives we are faced with many issues and problems that question some of the decisions or choices we make. Some of our actions bring about happiness and some promotes the reverse of such actions. According to the theory of utilitarianism which is a part of normative ethics states, “best moral action is the one that maximizes utility.” In other words it relates to the well-being and the state of happiness in an individual. The famous British philosopher John Stuart Mill also argued that, “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong in proportion as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (pg. 5). Each individual rate happiness in accordance to what its definition is or their interpretation of happiness. Globally, “happiness” can be defined as pleasure in the absence of pain.

There have been many philosophers who have taking up the topic of utilitarianism, but one that defines the quality of pleasures along with defining that there are actions behind picking those pleasures would be John Stuart Mill. Mill in his years of talking and discussing utilitarianism disagreed and agreed with philosophers and had a model. In this essay the following questions pertaining to quality of pleasure, what is utilitarianism, and principle of utility will be discussed. Also Mill’s other statement called On Liberty will be discussed as well.