Mills view on this statement is on the quality of happiness that matters and not the quantity of pleasure. He is also of the view that one pleasure may be more valuable than another. If there is an instant where all that have exposure of both pleasures give a decided preference despite any act of moral obligation to choose it, mills sees it as the more desirable pleasure. It is evident that if one pleasure is far above the other that it is preferred even when it is not satisfying there is another pleasure in the environment is capable to fill the discontent. Mills also view that no human being can be contented to be transformed into any of the lower creature for the benefit of full interest of a beast’s pleasure. It is apparent that a man cannot wish to sink into a lower level of life. This may be associated with the love of liberty and independence (Mill, 2002).
I agree with Mill in his statement that it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. The observation that even a noble character can bring less happiness to an individual as for the society it is beneficial. It is apparent that the outstanding happiness principle assures the total amount of happiness as the noble character even when it is not desirable to an individual. I agree also with Mills that no person in his conscience mind would be selfish even when he is persuaded that the fool is satisfied with his interest than he is with his.
Another reason I agree with Mills is that a being of higher dignity is entitled to more to be happy. A human being is capable of more specific suffering and certainly has access to more opportunities than creature of an inferior type (Mill, 2002). In the instance one try to know what satisfies a pig, one can find out is that it is food. It is evident due to its greedy nature a pig tends to eat a lot. As for human beings satisfaction is not only brought by food as surrounding oneself with