The Greatest Happiness Principle Essay

John Stuart Mill, an eighteenth century British philosopher, believed that people need better items to achieve happiness. " A being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy…"(Source

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”.

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.

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

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]

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.

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.

In this essay, I am going to argue for Mill’s argument that happiness is the only intrinsic good.

Mill’s pleasure principle was disputed by both philosophers and theologians because of its apparent lack of association to a code of morality. To this, Mill contended that there can

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.

“Human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites and, when once made conscious of them, do not regard anything as happiness which does not include their gratification.” (Mill, 332)

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.

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)

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.

What brings about happiness and pleasure for any one person may not be the same for another individual. In the case of someone who uses illicit drugs like cocaine, they may find happiness in performing such acts. However, for another individual this may not hold true to the thoughts of that person. This reverse action of happiness which is unhappiness that according to Mill is, “pain and the lack of pleasure” (pg. 5). Basically if there’s no pleasure in doing something there’s no pleasure in doing something there’s no happiness. In definition there are also three categories of pleasure. They are moral, intellectual, and animal pleasures. People identify