John Stuart Mill: Should We Pursue Pleasure?

On the other hand, John Stuart Mill had a response to the Doctrine worthy only of swine stating that, ‘the kind (quality) of pleasure matters as well as the amount (quantity) of pleasure to utilitarian’s’ (Class notes). This being said, Terry could be said to have happiness due to the fact that the quality and quantity both matter equally and it is not just about having pleasure with

Biases: John Stuart Mill, was an influential English- speaking philosopher that based his theories around freedom of action. Mill was against the discrimination by the government toward society. He believes that society should have the right to act by their own means without harming someone else, then the individual should not be questioned, but if their actions cause consequences then the government has the right to act on punishment.

Mill says that “[it is] better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied” or “it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied” (Mill, 6 – 7) he means that it is better to be knowledgeable than to be lack intelligence. If you are, like most humans and Socrates, are knowledgeable, you are aware of both the higher and lower pleasures. The higher pleasures are things like education and acquiring property. Higher pleasures are harder to achieve but they are better because they give you happiness only humans can achieve which is better than the lower pleasures. The lower pleasures are things like eating or sex, these are very easy pleasures to achieve and can be achieved by humans and non-human animals alike. These pleasures

Sentiments are described as having all justification of moral beliefs “grounded” in emotions. Mill says, “But there is this basis of powerful natural sentiment; and this it is which, when once the general happiness is recognized as the ethical standard, will constitute the strength of the utilitarian morality,”. By saying this, he is stating that natural sentiment is better, instead of forcing happiness and the actions taken to attain that action, it’s better if it happens on its own. Mill also says that sentiments has two sanctions: External and Internal. External sanctions are instrumental considerations (reward/punishments, favor/disfavor). Internal sanctions are duty; conscience; that we feel good or bad having performed an action. Thus, if internal sanctions provide the strongest influence over people's actions, utilitarianism must appeal to people's inner sentiments in order to exercise a binding force on them.

A philosopher, John Stuart Mill, wrote an autobiography dedicated to the topic of his own mental health and life. Through this he offered a new way to see happiness and how to truly achieve it. According to Mill happiness can’t be achieved by simply wanting it, instead you have to do things for others to become happy. He also wrote about the fact that if you question your own happiness you’ll never be happy. I agree with Mill, due to my own personal experiences that helped me find happiness through my own bout with depression. I found that the reason I couldn’t escape the depression was the fact that I kept questioning my own happiness and how others were so much happier than me, I grew bitter and angry, tightening the grip my depression

Mental pleasures are intrinsically superior to physical pleasures, as well as circumstantially. The evidence Mill appeals to in support of his claim that there are different kinds of pleasures and that some are superior to others is the experience of mankind. Those who are acquainted with both sorts of pleasures do prefer the higher pleasures. (P.10)

In order to determine whether happiness should be or not be the goal of all human kind, we must first consider what kind and of happiness that humans desire, and it’s true definition. According to John Stuart Mill, the definition of happiness is an intended pleasure and an absence of pain. (Shafer-Landau, p.17) As accurate as Mill’s definition of happiness seems to be, we must consider that if we achieve this “intended pleasure” for ourselves, then will the same pleasure be experienced by those around us? For example, say you’re back in your kid years, (5-11 years old), and you’re at the point in your life when you’re innocent enough to ask your parents for that awesome new toy that you’ve been wanting ever since it came out. Let’s say that

The idea of happiness and the flourishing of man have been the foundations to modern philosophical thought. Aristotle and John Stuart Mill aimed to explain the origin to happiness, and their respective conclusions also resulted in the definition of morality; these conclusions also affected their view of women. Aristotle believed that it was the function of women to remain subservient to men so that man (the citizen) could flourish and provide the good life for the Polis, whereas Mill denotes that equality between men and women produces happiness, and happiness, he argues, leads to pleasure, maintaining human flourishing. To Aristotle, flourishing is a function of happiness; it is human, human seek the greatest good, and that search to acquire any good is itself the process of flourishing. Flourishing is a group effort, according to Aristotle: when the Polis is happy, the people are happy. Women play a supporting role in the Polis, and Aristotle noted that their function in the process of flourishing is second to man. Mill conversely believed that though flourishing is uniquely human, humans seek pleasure, and it is the result of that search, not the simultaneous action, that produces flourishing. The idea of flourishing also pertains more closely to the individual level, as Mill saw it, for pleasure is an intimate idea, and unique to the individual. After finding pleasure, and with personal happiness, then society too will flourish. For Mill, women were equal to men because

John Stuart Mill believes in a utilitarian form of happiness, since happiness is a pleasure it should be designed to be useful or practical for the mass majority. Physical forms of pleasure are inferior compared to intellectual and moral pleasures when associated with genuine happiness accorrding to John Stuart Mill. A contributing factor John Stuart Mill added towards Jeremy Bentham impression of happiness was that pleasures should be separated on a qualitative level. John Stuart Mill considered happiness as two forms a higher and a lower form of happiness. According to John Stuart Mill if a person experienced both forms of happiness they would chose the higher form, this form fo thought was completlely against Jeremy Bentham views on happiness.

I believe that Mill's idea of Greater Happiness can work, and is an easy way to think about morality (easy enough to explain to the general public). However, it only works conditionally. A lot of the questions we had to think about involved two choices. The happiness of one person, or the happiness of many others. There were multiple variations to this question, but the premise stays the same. Mill's idea can potentially work and also not work, and the reason is that it depends on the intent of the people we are deciding between. If we decide on making sure our fellow human beings are happy, we would have to make sure that the people we choose to make happy are following the same ideal. In other words, in the situation where you choose between

People were always endeavored to live a life full of happiness and success, but to live a happy life one must define the word ‘happy’ and compare it to different feelings of pleasure. An example of an exquisite philosopher who investigated the meaning of happiness was Jeremy Bentham. He claimed that “more pleasure, or a greater quantity of pleasure than pain, means more happiness”. He also believed that the way of producing pleasure does not matter at all in terms of happiness, because eating ice cream and meeting with friends can bring the same amount of pleasure. In contrast, John Stuart Mill, a philosopher with an extremely interesting childhood thought differently. He thought that people can have higher pleasures and lower pleasures depending on what they value and also, intellectual pleasures that cannot be experienced by inhuman creatures. Mill established the Harm Principle in which he stated that “every adult should be free to live as he or she pleases as long as no one is harmed in the process”. It affects the happiness, which increases when “individuals have greater freedom in how they behaved”. Both Bentham and Mill inspired people to do more of what makes them happy. Bentham said that we all should do things, even as simple as eating ice cream, because it can highly affect our happiness. Moreover, Mill believed that social pressures and moral standards have prevented

Mill thinks that the higher pleasures, sometimes impure or costly, still produces more pleasure indirectly by cultivating our emotional sensibilities and imagination in valuable ways. The higher pleasures should be put on a more secure footing, revealing them to be intrinsically superior. He supports his higher pleasure (quality) by linking them with preferences of a competent judges test. The competent judges test argues that the only people capable of ranking a pleasure as lower or higher than another are those who has experience in both pleasures. If the majority of competent judges chooses a pleasure over another, that pleasure ranks higher in maximizing utility and should be preferred. Mill claims that a competent judge who is capable of higher

John Stuart Mill’s definition of quality can be broken-down distinctively into four separate definitions. When evaluating pleasures, J. S. Mill alleged the quality of particular pleasures is determined by how much pleasure the person obtains from the pleasure, in addition to, how just the pleasure is beneficially to society. Moreover, Mill argued against “…Bentham’s purely quantitative view of pleasure. Without denying that quantity is a consideration in the calculation of pleasure, Mill believed that it is not as important as the consideration of quality” (MILL’S VERSION: QUALITY OVER QUANTITY ). Therefore, the following details Mill explicates quality and quantity, exemplifying each of these ideas.

When it comes to glue usage, kindergarten teachers the world over agree that a dab will do. Nevertheless, despite centuries of debate, there is no such consensus about the ideal amount of individualism a society should desire. In his 1863 work On Liberty, philosopher John Stuart Mill seeks to address this issue, and explain the generally salutary progress of human thought and behavior. He concludes that most reasonable minds are produced through discussion and debate with the varied viewpoints of others, advocating for intellectual diversity. Mill also argues that, on a societal level, civilized outcomes are accomplished best through a mix of conformity to customs and individual agency to alter social norms. Mill’s arguments establish that individuals, or even isolated groups, are less effective than well-connected, heterogeneous groups; the later works of Putnam and Kwon et al. bolster and extend this truth with specific, contemporary evidence.

English philosopher John Stuart Mill, believes that life is filled with higher and lower pleasures. Most physical pleasures, like a good meal or sitting in a garden are not genuine pleasures but contentment instead. Mill believed that genuine pleasure, or true happiness is caused by intellectual pleasure. This can be done by living a moral and ethical life. He believes that pleasure and striving for the absence of pain are “the only things inherently good.” Mill also states that higher quality pleasures can be easily identified if humans would choose it over another pleasure, even if it comes with some discomfort. Mill writes, "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” Anyone who would disagree with the statement can be seen as the fool or the pig, as they don’t know the other side of the question. He believes that it is impossible to dictate which pleasures are of higher quality somebody must have a broad range of experiences, not just the psychological feeling of pleasure. A criticism of this