Comparing De Beauvoirs Position with Mills - Essay Example

? Running Head: Comparing de Beauvoir’s position with the position of either Mill Comparing de Beauvoir’s position with the position of either Mill Name Institution Date Comparing De Beauvoir’s position with Mills Introduction This paper will look into the deep consideration of ideas and many issues of two different authors and how they express themselves in different life issues. The paper shall look at how the authors view at different things in very different ways. It will be a good experience to see and learn how people can be different and how they can have different perspectives when it comes to certain issues. Utilitarianism Mill describes utilitarianism as the belief that the rightness of an action, rules or principle is to be judged by its presumed consequences (Bentham, 2009). For a utilitarian what is good is what gives pleasure, happiness, contentment or welfare. Utilitarianism contains a theory of good and a theory of right. It is characteristic of the utilitarian theory of right that rightness is derived from goodness. They base what is either good or right on human experience (Nabor-Nery, 2003). People tend to approve the things which bring about pleasure but disapprove which do not. Hobbes says that, a man fears depends on his individual character and upbringing page 2. For example if a person is comfortable with taking a bottle of wine they are happy and enjoy the pleasure that comes forth. Others hate taking whine therefore it will be obvious that they will disapprove that idea. They shall consider that as a wrong act to follow. Therefore, a person is free to do what they desire as long whatever they are doing gives them pleasure and are comfortable with it. Happiness will lead to calmness and a very stable community. When people are happy they are most likely to leave good lives which have no crime thus creating a society which can be confided in. For example, Hobbes tells us to seek peace and follow it in Page60. For the De Beauvoir position under freedom, the author argues that everyone has the ability to take note of them and choose what to do (Keltner, 2006). We are free, but our freedom is always enacted in a world. This limits the level of freedom as compared to Mills point of view. We have to follow the rules brought about by for example, the government. She also says that freedom is the universal absolute end. You are able to do what you desire to do. There seems to be a little contradiction of the ideas which are presented by Mill and De Beauvoir. Consequentiality theory For the Consequentialism theory Milldefines, it as those moral theories that hold a particular actions consequences usually form the basis of any valid moral judgment regarding that particular action. He argues that for whatever you do it is a must you pay for it. For example, when you steal something which is not yours you must suffer the consequences of that action which is not acceptable in the society. It also focuses on the outcomes of the actions, emphasizes on results instead of the types of acts involved. Before you do something you should be able to consider the consequences that follow the reaction. Mill insists that it is always fair for what to pay for your actions (Nabor-Nery, 2003). This will create a good society and will make everybody watch what they are doing for that fear. It will make people more organized and answerable in what they do. It also creates a stable government and reduces the problems and risks of political instability in the country. A person is always responsible for what they do. No one can pay for your mistakes. It is only you who will suffer for your own misconduct. De Beauvoir argues that the reaction of other people to another person based on the fact that you cannot help but be affected by those reactions, the author says that they are forced not to be satisfied by your actions (Keltner, 2006). She also argues that other people responses are positively necessary for one to keep on acting. For both authors, they contradict on ides as we have seen above. They all have different views. Everyone has to carry their own cross, and nobody is going to help you carry it. We have to be responsible, and this is good because it will always help us be considerate of what we do in fear of the consequences ahead. Higher and lower pleasures Under higher and low pleasures, Mill argues that ‘there are qualitative differences between pleasures as pleasures, some of these are superior to others on grounds of quality and the qualitatively superior are those that involve the distinctively human faculties. He also says that pleasures derived from the distinctively human faculties are qualitatively superior to those from animal appetites. They enjoy the fact that they are able to recognize the importance and the privilege of enjoying pleasure. They are always proud and love pleasure because it makes them feel wonderful and this gives them the enthusiasm of life. In De Beauvoir, the author argues that women are always oppressed by the society and others consider the women as an object to be used (Heinamaa, 2006). In her book, she says that men receive better treatment than the women, so they enjoy the simple pleasures of being men. This hinders the women from even participating in the activities available because they fear being intimidated by other people just because they are women. As Hobbes tells us, that one way of misusing our speech as human beings is when men use words to injure their enemies in Page12. The men are better off in terms of getting involved in their countries work because they do not receive the stigma of being male, unlike the female. We can see how the authors are not on the same side when it comes to face issues of pleasure for the human beings. Mill says that all the human beings enjoy the pleasure of life. The gender here does not matter in any way. For both sides, the people enjoy their daily lives and feel the pride and pleasure of whatever they do. As opposed to De Beauvoir’s point of view that in terms of pleasure, things are gender based. Women always face the problem of being ignored by the society. This makes them not to enjoy the pleasure enjoyed by the opposite sex. The greatest happiness principle For Mill, when considering of the principle of the Greatest Happiness, he believes that it includes the exemption from suffering. He argues that there is not time, previous to action, for calculating and weighing the effects of any line of conduct on the general happiness. Nothing should hinder a person from being happy. Happiness with no limits at all with nobody to deny you that right of being happy (Nabor-Nery, 2003). Not even religion or other believes should make one miserable. The principle is for one to be happy always even when things are not going well in your life. This will help boost a person’s self-morale and bring forth feelings of self-control in a person’s life. For De Beauvoir, she stands on the position that happiness should be considered in terms of terms of liberty (Keltner, 2006). This is the ability of individuals to control their own actions. She argues that male patriarchy strongly undermines the happiness and fulfillment of the females. She encourages women to be happy always in her book; she does not fail to mention the fact the woman is always taken for granted. She expresses how much the woman has to suffer just because she is a woman. This is sad enough and teaches people a lot of things in their cultures. Again Mill and De Beauvoir differ in their thoughts about happiness in the daily lives of the human beings. As Mill thinks that everybody is happy in one way or the other, De Beauvoir thinks in a different direction. De Beauvoir states that there is no equality at all when it comes to gender (Heinamaa, 2006). This is because women are not treated equally as compared to their male partners. Even in marriages there is also a contradiction and the woman is always the victim of sadness. Hobbes argues that happiness in this life does not consist in the calm of a satisfied mind in Page 44. The justice and rights of individuals Lastly, a comparison of the positions of justice and the rights of individuals according to both authors will be done. De Beauvoir says that punishment is necessary when a person goes wrong for there to be justice. She argues that women are placed in a subjugated position such that, their rights are tampered with in a certain way (Nabor-Nery, 2003). They are not given the justice they deserve as women. This is because of gender inequality which is surrounding us all over the world. Many people do not care about the feelings of women which is not fair all in a society. She argues that women have their own rights to claim who they are and where they belong. For Mill, he argues that Justice involves respect for the property, rights, and deserts of individual citizens. He also tries his level best to fight for the rights of all human beings without siding with a certain gender. This is opposed to De Beauvoir who mostly focuses on the justice for women (Heinamaa, 2006). He focuses on equality of gender which is very important for a country to grow as a whole. This will create a feeling of patriotism in a society or country because the people are able to enjoy the benefits of that he country. They are able to feel the protection from their government because they know they are in safe hands. Hobbes says that the most reasonable way for any man to safe himself is to strike first that is by force or cunning subdue other men as many of them as he can until he sees no other power great enough to endanger him in Page 37. People are able to do what is right always and watch their actions because they highly fear the consequences that follow their actions. The two authors have different ideas when it comes to this particular stand about justice and the rights of individuals. Some people support Mill while others go with De Beauvoir thoughts. It will depend on how a person has been influenced after reading the books. Conclusion The paper has definitely shown how different the two authors are. As Mill mostly focuses on the whole gender as a whole, De Beauvoir is mostly concerned with how the female gender is treated by the community. Most of her cries are concerned with the females. She is crying out for gender equality and better treatment for women (Nabor-Nery, 2003). She argues that in the society, the women have not yet received the women have not received the respect they deserve as women. While Mill focuses on equality for all gender. He wants everybody to be treated equally and does not specify the gender. He speaks in general for all the citizens of a country or for everyone in a society. It is evident that the two authors express their views in different ways. They have different ideas when it comes to the different problems which affect people. References Keltner, S. (2006). ‘Beauvoir’s Idea of Ambiguity’ in The Philosophy of Simone de Beauvoir: Critical Essays, ed. M.A Simons, Indiana: Hypatia Inc. and Indiana University Press Heinamaa, S. (2006). ‘Simone de Beauvoir’s Phenomenology of Sexual Difference’ in the Philosophy of Simone de Beauvoir: Critical Essays, ed. M.A Simons, Indiana: Hypatia Inc. And Indiana University Press Nabor-Nery, M.E. (2003). Ethics, Educational Publication House: Manila Verlag, 1996). English translation of Phanomenologie des geistes. Frankfurt is Main: Suhrkamp Bentham J, (2009). Utilitarianism. BiblioBazaar, Hobbes T, (2004)’Leviathan’. Jonathan Bennet Read More