Mill and Pleasure, Utilitarianism and Happiness - Essay Example

?Introduction Pleasure, as define in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2009), is the or feeling of being pleased or gratified, that which affords enjoyment or delight to an individual. Philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) in his works comes out strong in creative a constructive examination of the space and the position of people in it and particularly individual freedom and the well-being of humans. In his view, Mill claims that pleasure is the only good in and of itself. This philosophically explained means that the pleasure is good not as a way to other good or only depends upon other good, thus an action has worth only if it results to happiness. This is, however, not the case for his critics such Kant who views an action as worthy only when it is as a result of respect for the moral law. According to Mill’s utilitarianism which presumes a hedonistic theory of value, only things of fundamental value are equated to happiness and they include pleasure and the lack of pain. He is of the view that as humans strives for individual happiness, so must they collectively struggle for the delight of the people. This view is supported by Plato whom according to, the society mirrors the soul of the individual first followed by the virtues of the society mirroring the virtues of the individual. Though he equates pleasure to happiness, he appreciates some pleasures being higher than others, “Not all pleasures have equal value.” Higher pleasures are more valuable than lower pleasures. For example Pleasures of the mind are ranked higher than those of the body or a pleasure that comes with helping a needy person is considered great as compared to the pleasure as a result of taking alcohol. Mill goes against the basic principle of ethics which presumes actions as being right if they promote pleasure of the most number. The intuitive view that bases ethics on self-evident principles, according to him, is not workable for it does not apply to usefulness. He chooses the inductive outlook which supports principles on experiential facts. Through his empiricism as mentioned by Gensler (1998) He (Mill) claims that even a sum like two plus two which equals to four ( 2+2=4) is based on sense experience. The assertions by Mill that however great a sensual or lower pleasure may be it cannot be compared to an intellectual or higher pleasure however small it is and that mental pain is higher while physical pain is lower is biased and contradictory. Here, he does not establish the truth of his consequentialism view of utilitarianism which indicates that actions are to be judged right or wrong based on consequences. On the other hand, Hedonism principle demands that in assessing consequences what matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that is caused. In the philosophical utilitarianism by Mill, it is clear that pleasure is good in itself, that is, it is intrinsically good. This means that other things such as money, health and virtues like generosity; integrity and many more others are goods as means to an end. But according to Aristotle, such virtues are not only as a means to the supreme end which is ‘eudainonia’ or happiness but also they are ends in themselves. This begs for a clear distinction between the two forms of a good, a good as a means and a good as an end, however, a good can have both intrinsic and instrumental values for example health. The difference between the two can be well explained by looking at the two non-deontological traditions of the good as embraced by Aristotle and Mill, Good - Intrinsic and Merely Instrumental Good Aristotle’s Teleological tradition construes the good in terms of its fulfillment of ends as natural or proper to a creature thus conceived as immanent. Mill’s consequentiality on the other hand holds that a good is quantitatively maximized, that is, it is as a result of our acts. Another differentiation is that teleological goes beyond immanicism and as such it should include some standards of value in distinguishing between good and bad tendencies while consequentialism on its part in its external standards should provide the motive of action. Kent (2011) indicates that an intrinsic good is good in and of itself not as a way of getting something else for example happiness does not lead to anything else but it’s just good to be happy. An instrumental good provides the means of acquiring something else of value for example having some cash of money will facilitate your buying of essentials items as clothing. Humans do experience higher pleasure than any creature. Things that relate to humans’ intelligence, imagination and moral feelings are pleasurably higher and thus produce a higher quality of pleasure since individuals get to identify with them easily. In Utilitarianism (pp. 7-11), Mill argues that one pleasure can be qualitatively better than another basing on the experience of both pleasures. It is also viewed that a being with higher faculties will require many to build happiness in him and thus cannot change his place with the fool even for the fool’s satisfaction, Utilitarianism (p. 9) “It is healthier for a person discontented than a pig contented.” This particular view is not always the case as presented because the presumed pig’s capabilities have not been explored, hence, pleasure can be found in whatever we do well. But Mill’s view can also be argued out since what an individual does and thinks has a direct impact on his/her personality. Therefore, Mill’s claim that pleasure is a good in itself and of itself holds water. The claim is not merely made, it is out of motivation and most likely it is motivated by his personality. This, as well argued out by Freud in his Psychoanalytic theory of Personality Development; an individual’s personality is driven by love and aggression. The two, “have direct control on our minds and thoughts.” The motivation for his view is influenced by his instinct and determination to live and understand issues. Still, Freud indicates that an adult personality is determined by Id, Ego and Super Ego and the three combined form a tripartite personality. Id is irrational demands and needs which do not have anything to do with the reality of the situation, thus, give immediate pleasure. Ego plays a big role in fulfillment of Id, taking into consideration the reality of the situation. Super Ego includes the moral constraints and is usually imposed. The satisfaction of human’s desires and their survival depends on their coming to ascertain the fact about the normal world in which they find themselves. The ascertainment is the only means available for meeting the ends of truth. Mill singles out two rules of logic, the inductive and deductive rules which he describes as rules of art that have a cognitive end and the exploration after reality. The theory of knowledge asserts that knowledge comes from sensory experience. This is emphasized by empiricism through rationalism, historicism and idealism. The scientific approach of empiricism emphasizes evidence especially that which is discovered in experiments, therefore, it is necessary for theories to be tested against observations of the natural world than resting on prior reasoning, intuition or revelation. Conclusion In conclusion, there is always something that will bring happiness to everybody; however, it is worth noting that what makes one person happy does not necessarily make the next person miserable. Happiness is inseparable from pleasure and as such it is motivational. In appreciating Mill’s view in Utilitarianism (VI 2) Happiness is the only thing that appeals to it. Someone does not crave his/her own happiness for its individual sake, therefore, happiness is desired by and attractive for its own sake for people as a whole (IV 3). An ultimate desire is meant to result into happiness, however, there are those individuals who have disinterested concern for the desirable quality and that they are concerned about it only for its own sake. Our wishes begin in self- interest. This means that our own pleasure is an intrinsic good, thus, a good in itself and of itself. Reference Mill, Stuart. Utilitarianism, Harvard: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer, 1871 Mill, Stuart. Liberty, New York: Longmans, Green and Co.1913 Read More