Utility and Virtue: Mill and Aristotle on Happiness - Essay Example

Utility and Virtue: Mill and Aristotle on Happiness John Stuart Mill and Aristotle both wrote on happiness and its connection with virtue. By examining both of these philosophers’ views on this subject, we can see that they both had different views of the subject, and a comparison of the two views will allow for us to examine the strengths and weaknesses of both arguments. Aristotle felt that happiness was the only thing that people would desire for its own sake, and in this he felt that it was the highest and most pure of all desires. If we are to desire something for a means to another end, then we are not being completely honest, and in this we are committing a wrong in this dishonesty. Happiness can have no other purpose than its own sake. Logically, we can’t desire happiness because we want to be intelligent, smart, successful, or any number of other things. These are things are not as valuable as happiness themselves, because these are the sorts of things that people strive for because they think they can achieve happiness through them. In this way people are using these as a means to an end, and even though this end is happiness, these sorts of things still are not as valuable. For instance, fame and money do not always bring people happiness. Often the case seems to be that the pursuit of these things gets in the way of the pursuit of happiness. People are able to be happy without large amounts of money or being famous, but these don’t make people happy in and of themselves. These things might lead a person to happiness, but happiness will not lead to these things. People also need to seem to have some function. Without a purpose to one’s life, there is no reason to attempt to accomplish anything. People need to feel like they are doing something, because if they feel that they are doing nothing, then there is no real purpose in being. By deliberately attempting to accomplish something, we are able to strive towards happiness. Aristotle felt that people needed to live a life of reason in order to have a purpose. By living a life a reason, it is possible to contribute to one’s own growth as a person, and this is enough to give people purpose. Aristotle was also concerned with virtue. As he saw it, virtue was not simply a matter of having a list of things that could and should be done and a list of things that shouldn’t be done. We must know the reason behind doing things. Take for instance religion. Religion gives people a list of things that should and shouldn’t be done. But religion does not offer reasons for why things must be done. Without understanding why certain actions are being taken, it If people are performing things because they understand the reasons behind them, then they are being virtuous. This in turn gives people a sense of purpose in being, and this sense of purpose is part of happiness. In this way by behaving ethically and virtuously, Aristotle thinks that we should be living in a state of happiness. However, the problem is that by merely behaving virtuously will not guarantee people happiness. Sometimes the right thing to do will get people into trouble because there are forces outside the control of people that don’t allow people to pursue their happiness. Also, some people might consider something that is unethical something that brings them happiness. This is a different conception of happiness, but there is no doubt that some people feel this way. The main problem with Aristotle’s view of the connection between happiness and morality is that it takes a very righteous and naïve view of people. It is very much possible for some people to pursue happiness through unethical means, and Aristotle does not take this into consideration. John Stuart Mill thought of happiness in terms of utility. It is a consequential theory, meaning that because something is good as a consequence of its action. This, in a sense, is to consider something as a means to an end. While Mill thought that happiness was also the only thing that people did not pursue as a means to an end, his conception differs greatly from Aristotle’s. Mill thought that happiness was a result of the greatest amount of pleasure. In this statement too is included as a given that there needs to be an absence of pain, or at least as little pain as possible, because pain is something that would detract from happiness; it is viewed as the opposite of happiness. According to Mill, we need to have the most amount of pleasures in our life to bring us the highest amount of happiness. In this we also need to realize that we need to realize that we have accomplished the highest level of happiness and we cannot exceed the current level of happiness. We need to realize this because if we were always thinking that there was a way to maximize our pleasure even more, then we would always be thinking about this, and the thought that we aren’t as happy as possible would bring us pain, thus detracting from our pleasure. Thus it is absolutely necessary at to point to accept the amount of happiness that we have as the total that is possible. While Aristotle was concerned with virtue and happiness on a personal level, Mill was concerned with the greatest amount of happiness in regards to all people concerned. Accordingly, Mill states that happiness is that which all people strive for, and that since all people strive for it, it is what we should take as a measure of what is good. As this is the case, it becomes that what causes the largest amount of people happiness is that which is the most moral. Whereas Aristotle thought that being moral would bring happiness to people, Mill viewed the two in relation as opposites; he felt that it was the amount of happiness of something that determined its morality. There are a few things wrong with the views of Mill. For instance, morality was an affect of what caused people happiness. What about the Nazis, for instance? What brought the Nazis happiness was the extermination of Jews. In Mill’s view, since there was a vast majority of consensus in the country that the extermination of the Jews was bringing people happiness, this to the Nazi party became moral. Therefore, we can see how Mill’s theory can justify actions that most people would have normally viewed as amoral. Secondly, Mill was only concerned with what brought happiness to people to the largest amount of people as this would increase the overall utility of it. This doesn’t allow for much in the way of individuality. There is, obviously, sharply contrasting views of what makes people happy. It seems almost completely ridiculous to think that such a large number of people could share similar views as to what makes them happy. Also, since the individual’s happiness is not considered on a personal level, this also makes for other contradictions. Take for instance if a person was faced with saving one person that the person cared about from falling over a cliff or saving a busload of strangers from falling off a cliff. As a prerequisite, there is no way to save both the one person that is cared about and the people on the bus. According to Mill, the obvious choice would be to save the people on the bus, because it concerns the largest amount of people possible. Saving the people on the bus would make the largest amount of people possible happy, so the person faced with the decision would be happy that the bus full of strangers would be saved because that increased the total amount of happiness and thus increased the person’s amount of happiness. Obviously this situation has no happy ending, and the view of utilitarianism does not take into consideration these sorts of situations where there are no good possible outcomes. Personally, I think that happiness has to do with having a purpose and being fulfilled. When people are working jobs only because that job allows them to survive, people in those situations aren’t generally happy. They need to find something to do in their free time to be able to give themselves purpose. This makes it a very subjective aspect of humanity. Being as it is subjective, being realistic we have to consider that what makes some people happy might be considered immoral by others and infringe upon other people’s happiness. So Mill is correct in some sense that we have to consider other people in regards to happiness; however, not in the sense that he thought of it. As happiness is so subjective, we have to say that we can only make ourselves as happy as possible without infringing upon other people’s ability to make themselves happy. Thus, this does not allow Nazis the say that the extermination of Jews is moral because the Nazis were infringing upon the Jews’ right to pursue happiness. This view states that it is not important what would make the most people happy there would be such a small amount of people that would have a similar conception of happiness that it would be pointless to even consider such an idea. Read More