I have been
a big believer in Mill’s philosophy on utilitarianism for a significant part of
my life without even knowing it prior to studying it in class. I find it very
hard to grasp the idea of going through with an action without considering its
end effects for yourself and/or for your fellow man.
In partial
accordance with the Principle of Utility, I think that we should all strive for
all actions to achieve happiness as the highest goal. While the smaller
individual actions all contribute to the make up the greatest degree of
happiness, these actions should not be overlooked as something insignificant in
the scope of attaining the greatest happiness. Aside from having a
well-developed conscience and being rational, developing healthy, happy, and
positive relationships with other people is one of the most admirable qualities
that we possess. It is such a reciprocal idea in the sense that if the person
receives happiness from you, they will be driven and want to do the same. Even
if they choose not to, you are also able to relish in the fact that you have
done something positive for someone, thereby contributing to your
self-happiness. In addition, positively connecting with another person is
highly beneficial in practically every sense.
We had an
in-depth discussion this week about the distinction of higher and lower
pleasures and how Mill would say that we should prioritize our actions based on
“quality.” We differentiated something like playing video games would be a
lower pleasure in comparison to getting an education, which would be a higher
pleasure. We also determined that if you are choosing between two high
pleasures, you are unable to make a “correct” decision, meaning that you are
left to be wrong, no matter how right you think you are. How do you feel about that? Let’s say that
you love to paint and want to be a painter to spread happiness through your
work. Much to your dismay, you struggle to support yourself financially and
others do not find the same value in your work that you do. Would you say that
you are able to attain happiness in painting?
I think the circumstances would make this situation clearer, because for Mill society's happiness is more important than individuals. If painting makes you happy and makes society happier then it would clearly be a good thing. So i'd say if you love to paint but you are having problems in all other aspects of life and others do not get happiness from it, Mill's perspective on your painting would be negative one. You could probably find things that make both you and society happier.
ReplyDeleteI think, like Matthew said, this is very situational. Unlike Kant, Mill's moral philosophy does use specific situations. Kant argues for a universal law independent of consequences, while Mill bases the morality of an action solely on its consequences. This can get tricky. When a philosophy like this is presented, it is easy to get bogged down in superfluous details. This is not what Mill intends. So for example, in this situation with the painter, it still would be a measure of pain versus pleasure. If the painter loves to paint, then that is a pleasure and is morally beneficial in the view of Mill. But if painting brings the painter pain financially, psychologically, or in any other significant pain, then painting would not be beneficial. This is all that Mill requires when measuring the utility of an action. If it is not benefiting society (but also not causing pain), then it comes down to individual happiness and should be measured accordingly.
ReplyDeleteI think, like Matthew said, this is very situational. Unlike Kant, Mill's moral philosophy does use specific situations. Kant argues for a universal law independent of consequences, while Mill bases the morality of an action solely on its consequences. This can get tricky. When a philosophy like this is presented, it is easy to get bogged down in superfluous details. This is not what Mill intends. So for example, in this situation with the painter, it still would be a measure of pain versus pleasure. If the painter loves to paint, then that is a pleasure and is morally beneficial in the view of Mill. But if painting brings the painter pain financially, psychologically, or in any other significant pain, then painting would not be beneficial. This is all that Mill requires when measuring the utility of an action. If it is not benefiting society (but also not causing pain), then it comes down to individual happiness and should be measured accordingly.
ReplyDeleteI agree that most people do live their life searching for happiness by keeping the end in mind. However, I think an important fact that was not highlighted is that Mill says the greatest happiness is not a personal pleasure but something that brings about the happiness of society. I feel that most people today do not act according to keeping the happiness of the society in mind. I personally feel that most people today do not follow Mill’s idea of happiness because people are far too selfish today to be concerned with happiness for the greatest amount of people. -Morgan
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point about Mill and Kant - they do intersect and differ. Mill says in his work "Utilitarianism" that "It is the business of ethics to tell us what are our duties, or by what test we may know them; but no system of ethics requires that the sole motive of all we do shall be a feeling of duty..." In other words, Mill encourages us as rational beings to do what is best for the greatest number of people, and to in this way promote the greater good . He emphasizes in the same breath however that we should not neglect our own priorities or self-interests for the sake of everyone else. I can relate personally to this struggle because I myself am a "giver." I make it a priority in my life to be attentive and empathetic to those around me, and as Mill would agree, I promote the greater good this way. Yet, in order to maintain my own happiness and to prevent my own welfare from being thrown by the wayside, I have to make myself and my prerogatives be just as well-prioritized and integrated into my daily life as are those of my loved ones. In address to your question, we cannot speculate about what is best within a perfect world because we do not live in one. We live in a very imperfect world in which a degree of balance between self and others must necessarily be developed, order that we can ensure the greatest degree of "quality" of life for ourselves and others.
ReplyDelete