What Does Mill Pursue Lower Pleasure?

Mill disagreed with Bentham as he believed in ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ pleasures that can be derived from actions and promoted those pleasures which developed an individual’s skills and abilities rather than short-term pleasure seeking actions. He placed emphasis on individual development and flourishing.

Mill says that ethical decisions should be based on pleasure. Therefore when he states that pleasure is the sole requirement for happiness, it is questionable because pain indirectly affects happiness. Pain is an indirect factor because it is not the object of one’s happiness but it is an obstacle, which you have to overcome. If you were to avoid all pain, then how would you truly ever know what pleasure feels like? Real pleasure comes only after experiencing pain. If a person always wins the tic tac toe game then the pleasure they feel turns into an expectation. Thus it is not true pleasure. If the loser of the tic tac toe game after 20 years finally wins he can feel the desired pleasure that he was seeking.

Joel Kupperman in Six Myths about the Good Life: Thinking About What Has Value evaluates that humans as a whole want more comfort and pleasure in life as he it “may represent a tendency that is wired into normal human nature” (Kupperman 1). Through the explanation of pleasure as well as its arguable counterpart, suffering and the discussion of their values in addition to the counterargument of hedonic treadmill, Kupperman’s views about the role of pleasure in living a good life can be strongly supported and evaluated.

“The greatest good for the greatest number”; that is how the British philosopher John Stuart Mill famously summarized utilitarianism (Shafer-Landau, 2012b, p. 120). He is not only one of the greatest utilitarians, he is also a hedonist. Hence, he believed that this greatest good can be achieved by focussing all action on attaining the greatest amount of happiness. Mill describes utility as holding ‘that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness’ ((Shafer-Landau, 2012a, p. 17). He defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain, and unhappiness as pain and the privation of pleasure. Hence, Mill argues that only pleasure is intrinsically desirable and only misery intrinsically bad (Shafer-Landau, 2012a, p. 120). All other desirable things are only desirable as means to promote pleasure or prevent pain (Shafer-Landau, 2012a, p. 18). Therefore, in order to refute Mill’s utilitarianism, one would have to show that there is something other than pleasure or the freedom from pain that is intrinsically desirable. First, Robert Nozick’s attempt to disprove utilitarianism and hedonism in the shape of his ‘experience machine’ will be explained. Next, Mill’s arguments in favour of utilitarianism and hedonism will be recapitulated in an attempt to answer the central research question: why does Nozick’s experience

Iyengar, S. S., Lepper, M. R. When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing?

In fact, however, the pleasures differ quite a lot, in human beings at any rate. For some things delight some people, and cause pain to others; and while some find them painful and hateful, others find them pleasant and lovable…But in all such cases it seems that what is really so is what appears so to the excellent person. If this is right, as it seems to be, and virtue, i.e., the good person insofar as he is good, is the measure of each thing, then what appear pleasures to him will also really be pleasures…and if what he finds objectionable appears pleasant to someone, that is not at all surprising: for human beings suffer many sorts of corruption and damage. It is not pleasant, however, except to those people in these conditions.

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.

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.

One might say, however, that some things are desired as a means to happiness. These, he says, are ‘ingredients’ to happiness. Happiness consists of these ‘ingredients’; they are a part of the happiness. Therefore, Mill claims that whatever is desired for its own sake is part of what happiness is, and each individual person desires different things to make them happy. They are means to the end of happiness. It is not possible, according to Mill, to desire something that will not provide some form of pleasure. Pleasure is happiness, and people only desire happiness, and happiness is therefore the only good.

In Utilitarianism, Mill addresses many objections to his general moral theory of promoting happiness and decreasing pain. Through Mill's rebuttals to the objections, his ideas about well-being become clear. Although his moral theory is important to understand the basis upon which his ideas about well-being sit, they miust stand alone so that one can determine to which theory of well-being Mill adhered. Mill's ideas about well-being spring from his explanation of the difference between contentment and true happiness. Leading up to his ultimate discussion of the distinction, Mill attempts to clear up misunderstandings about what pleasure and happiness are. The swine objection involves misunderstandings about pleasure and the difference between animals and humans, and Mill addresses it in clearing up the misunderstandings. The objection claims that

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]

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.

The pursuit of pleasure has also been condemned by critics as being little more than the promotion of one’s own interests, with no regard to the happiness of others. Mill disputes this as being narrow-minded, clarifying that the pleasure principle which forms the foundation for utilitarianism, “what is right in conduct, is not the agent's own happiness, but that of all concerned” (Mill 16). With this acknowledgment, however, comes the criticism that people cannot possibly be motivated by something as satisfying the collective good of society. Mill countered this by pointing out, “The utilitarian morality does recognize in human beings the power of sacrificing their own greatest good for the good of others” (Mill 16). To the objection that pleasure is an acceptable end is contrary to Christian principles because it is “godless,” Mill states, “If it be a true belief that God desires, above all things, the happiness of his creatures, and that this was his purpose in their creation, utility is not only not a godless doctrine, but more profoundly religious than any other” (Mill 21).

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.

The usefulness of his calculus, and the way Bentham defined pleasure came into question from one of his students, J.S. Mill who found his approach too general and simplistic. Mill rejected Bentham’s idea that all pleasures are the same and can be compared, he felt that there were different types or ‘levels’ of pleasure, and that some are more desirable or valuable than others. He decided that some pleasures or more desirable and meaningful than others, that there are