Thus far,
Mill is the most modern of philosophers that we have studied, so now we are
able to pick out the influences of the philosophers who came before him. As we
learned in class, Mill was exposed to philosophy at a shockingly young age, and
he was somewhat of a child prodigy. Philosophies of the past were always around
him, and it is evident in his idea of Utilitarianism where he could have pulled
certain ideas and beliefs.
Mill begins
to have common ground with both Epicurus and Aristotle when he brings up that
some pleasures are greater than others. We discussed that how going to class,
working hard, and ultimately gaining a lifelong knowledge is more worthwhile,
and thus causes more happiness, than going out partying every night or playing
videogames 24/7. This reminded me of Epicurus’ belief of finding a balance of
pleasures, how many of his followers removed themselves from society and lived
the most pleasurable life possible due to their absence of pain. Epicureans
probably believed in Utilitarianism without knowing it, I could easily see
Epicureans wanting other members of society to be in a state of ataraxia and aponia. However, Mill includes a sense of duty into his philosophy
that Epicurus cuts out. Mill believes it is our duty to act for the greatest
good for the greatest amount of people, while Epicureans are more
self-centered. A combination of Kant and
Epicurus could have possibly influenced Mill, as duty is the greatest good in
Kant’s philosophy, but it lacks the pursuit of personal happiness that is
included in Mill’s philosophy.
Though
Kant and Epicurus could have influenced Mill, I see a larger connection with
Mill and Aristotle. Mill’s ‘greatest happiness principle’ reminds me of a large-scale
version of Aristotle’s idea of eudaimonia,
that as a society pure happiness can be reached by wholesome goodness. Both
Mill and Aristotle address the hierarchy of satisfaction, believing that
intellectual and moral goods are more rewarding than animalistic pleasures. Eudaimonia
is reached by achieving a final sense of happiness and satisfaction, and the
‘greatest-happiness principle’ proposes that all people should act for the
greater good of society. If we were in a
perfect world, and all people acted for the greater good of society, would that
society naturally reach a state of eudaimonia?
Perhaps it is more likely that they
would reach aponia and ataraxia as a whole, and then the
individuals would be free to pursue their own eudaimonia?
I do believe the similarities of Utilitarianism and past philosophers is more than just coincidental, and is evident in every dogma of the pragmatic philosophy. Mill's vast knowledge of philosophy most likely bred these similarities, but there are a myriad influences being left out. Utilitarianism was coined earlier by Jeremy Bentham near the time of Europe's industrial boom and for the first time in history both the individual was being valued, and the prospect of the self- made man had entered play. It was no longer useful to the individual to be seen as a member of society and to look at his or her own actions by the morality behind it, now each person was being given the responsible to look at their actions from a deterministic standpoint, guiding their own ventures in a way that would benefit them and society. The ability to rise up from the once stagnant class system was the motivation for Utilitarianism, but the Philosophers past were the foundation.
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.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis of how these philosophies share things in common, but I would extend that to philosophies in general. Because philosophers tend to be cut from a certain kind of cloth, that is intellectual and relatively well-off, many of them arrive at a lot of the same conclusions. While the claim that "all of philosophy is just footnotes to Plato," is true to an extent, I believe a lot of philosophers were indeed writing just that- footnotes to Plato, without actually arriving at truly original ideas. It would be interesting to see what someone who wasn't influenced by Plato and who isn't a 'philosopher-type' would write.
ReplyDelete