Morality and the Desire for Happiness. Aristotle, Mill and Kant Theories - Essay Example

Morality and the Desire for Happiness. Aristotle, Mill and Kant theories Happiness refers to the of the mind of health that is characterized by positive emotions of contentment and joy. Over the years, many scientists have found that there is a benchmark between being happy and the psychological and physical health of a person. Happiness does not only make one enjoy life but also determines how successful one is going to be in life. It is worth noting that there are three types of happiness; pleasure, engagement and meaning (Aristotle, 96). The first happiness, pleasure refers to the enjoyment that people seek when choosing to have fun that includes seeking as many positive emotions as possible. It includes pleasure seeking behaviour such as entertainment, being in the company of friends and having a good time to relax. The second happiness, engagement is the state of being totally wrapped up in the people one loves or an activity that brings a happy feeling for instance, listening to music such that one totally gets lost in it. The third happiness has to do with what gives life meaning in a general perspective which is found by realising ones strengths and using them to serve others in a manner that one believe is of greater importance than they are (Aristotle, 87). Is happiness always moral? Moral happiness refers to the happiness that is fuelled by moral considerations. Aristotle, in his moral philosophy, argues that an action can be termed as good or evil if it contributes to the ultimate aim of the human end. He describes this as telos that mean happiness where all the acts of a human being are focused. Aristotle alludes to the definition of happiness based on the well-being, completion and the perfection of human satisfaction. He continues further to point out that in order to attain this happiness, understand it and find the motivation to seek it in the most rational and consistent way, it requires one to be equipped with a range of moral virtues. Therefore, what is good for human beings is essentially that which constitutes all the right functions of the human life as a whole and one that is expressed as a virtue of excellence according to the soul. He suggests that the goal of a human being should be achieving the proper virtues rather than acquiring material possessions. In this case, "virtue is its own reward (Aristotle 79). “This means that true happiness can only be attained through acquiring and nurturing the virtues that makeup a human life (Aristotle, 82). Do ends always justify the means? Utilitarianism refers to an ethical philosophy or principle that was generated by an English philosopher-economist known as Jeremy Bentham that alludes to the greatest good is referred to as the happiness that the greatest number of people in society have. The principle was later developed by an English philosopher-economist, John Stuart Mill in his book, Utilitarianism (1863). According to Jeremy, an action is considered to be good if it results to happiness or if it brings pleasure (lack of pain) and it is wrong if it ends in unhappiness. It is worth noting that, under this philosophy, no principle is absolute or necessary because the connection between actions and their consequences that can either be happy or unhappy depends on the circumstances. (Mill 55). In other words, the theory states that the ends justify the means because it means that if an action eventually  brings pleasure or happiness, then the act itself must, therefore, be ethical. According to this theory, it is important for one to consider the possible results of an action before undertaking it. However, one cannot tell ultimate results because they can only be realised in the future. “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” –John Stuart Mill (Mill 56) It is worth noting that, in his book of Utilitarianism, Mill points out that the physical pleasures are of lesser importance and value compared to those depicted by the mind, spirit and one’s culture. He also brings out the fact that it is of paramount importance to consider the quantity of pleasure highlighting that the most ethical choice is that which results to the greatest good for the greatest number of people, or, to quote Star Trek, ." .. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” (Mill 73). It means it is attained by forcing total conformity. Today mill’s philosophies are being used and applied in various fields including the U.S. Constitution. The theory has several merits and demerits. One of the strengths of this philosophy is that it is a simple ethical principle to apply and use in daily life. Apart from that, the theory also holds on to live a moral life without adherence or the need to appeal to any divine powers or belief in God. It concentrates more on the logic rather than reason. Also, the philosophy is used in daily life especially in decision making that most of the time crops from the consequences of human behaviour and actions. Therefore, using these ethical principles seems like natural way of one’s daily decision-making procedures. On the other hand, the utilitarianism has a number of drawbacks results to "end justifies the means" thinking. However, must the end not always justify the means? It so because, if any worthwhile end can justify the means to attain it, then a true ethical foundation would be lost. (Mill 76). The means have to be judged by an objective and the consistent standard of morality hence an act cannot be judged as good because of the simple fact that it resulted to a good consequence (the means must justify themselves).Another drawback of utilitarianism is that it does not take into consideration or care for the groups represented by a minority. For instance, during the eighteenth century, the Americans justified slavery on the basis that it was meant for the greater good of the majority the Americans (Mill 75). It was done at the expense of the lives and health black slaves who were subjected to hard labour. Another weakness is that this the consequences can be accurately predicted and they also have to be judged as to whether they are good or bad. The action of coming to a conclusion as to how much personal liberty that one should forego for the sake of the good of people, is another fact that presents a problem when actualizing utilitarianism in the daily life. Does one always have to look at the greater/ universal meaning of happiness? In his book ‘Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant explains the principles of morality that have universal and unconditional moral commands that acquire this force by imposing the moral laws upon themselves and the society. He developed the Deontological Ethics of moral theory that suggests that the will behind the action that determines the moral worth of that action. He argues that the correctness of an action is determined by character of the principle that a person chooses to take action. Kant aspires to nothing less than this: to lay bare the fundamental principle of morality and show that it applies to all human beings. (Kant 54). Kant proposes that the consequence of actions is largely beyond one’s control because there are many factors determine final outcomes of actions. It worth noting, however, human beings are the initiators of their motivations that are defined by one’s character. He also points out that happiness cannot be qualified if it results into evil or pain. Kant looks at happiness in two approaches, sensible and intelligible. Kant describes sensible happiness as ‘consciousness of the agreeableness of life’ (as cited in Wike, 1994, p.2). He regards this as the greatest physical good. He alludes to the fact that human beings are motivated to this happiness through inclination, for example, seeking pleasure by satisfying out human desires. Intelligible happiness also known as moral happiness is based on reason coupled with a constant will to power. He explains that when one is in a state of satisfaction and peace of mind, then that is happiness. Kant does not base his argument on morality because according to him it is not relevant to all human beings and at all times rather on contingent circumstances. It is in this sense that Kant challenges the both theories of Hedonism and Utilitarianism because they fail adequately to distinguish the difference between happiness and virtue (Kant 44) the difference between happiness and virtue (Kant 44). He continues to argue that the two philosophies do not appreciate the maxims of virtue and those of one’s own happiness are entirely heterogeneous as regard their highest practical principle. (Kant 38). Kant also points out that there are two drivers of good will, by defining two distinguishing two forms of commands. Those that are created by others and those that are created by individuals that govern human beings. However, there are two varieties of commands that are, hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives (Kant 42). The hypothetical imperatives command one to undertake a particular action in order to achieve another while the categorical imperatives commands one to undertake a particular action despite one’s desire. He relies on the belief that the good will is determined by morality that is universally applicable to all human beings. In the comparison of the three philosophies, it of paramount importance to first consider the authors’ opinions of each other. For instance, Kant is in agreement Aristotle that the actions that are intrinsically evil must never be performed. However, Mill suggests that any kind of action be commendable. Also, both Aristotle and Mill have based their moral philosophies on the seeking of happiness despite the fact that they have different definitions and understanding of what happiness is. Kant, on the other hand creates his foundation of the idea of good will on ethics. Kant and Aristotle have similar approaches in the sense that they both have a strong admiration of reason and rationality. There is a variety of differences in the three philosophers. Aristotle develops a form of virtue ethics that he refers to as the highest goal of human beings while Kant, on the other hand, comes up with a deontological ethics in which the highest good is acting according to a sense of duty alone and following absolute principles (Kant 48). Another difference is seen whereby, the virtue ethics of Aristotle involves the understanding of happiness as the end goal of all morality. Whereas for Kant, happiness involves duty, for the sake itself and according to Mill, the understanding of morality is happiness as pleasure and absence of pain. In utilitarianism, Aristotle describes happiness or pleasure quantitatively as the greatest pleasure of the greatest number. Mill, on the other hand, describes it in a qualitative aspect. Both Aristotle and Kant are inclined to the fact that emphasizes disposition of the agent and little or nothing at all at the consequences of an action. In the case of Aristotle, the rational nature of the agent must be the guiding light through the process of selection through the means. Kant also emphasis on rationality and the need for freedom and autonomy (Kant 37). For Mill, however, all that is of importance is consequences of an act. According to both Kant and Mill, there is too much importance attached to the adherence of the moral rule and morality. However Aristotle tends to differ because he does not view morality in the light of being essential for its own sake or the greatest good of the greatest number of people but preservation of a rational principle of guiding oneself between two choices. Aristotle’s philosophy is rather individualistic since it focuses on the happiness of an individual rather than the universal happiness as is the case for both Kant and Mill.Another major difference between Aristotle’s moral theory and Kant’s and Mill’s moral theories is that Aristotle’s theory is an agent-based theory rather than an act-based theory (Aristotle 87). A good approach of explaining this is that Aristotle answers questions about morality by looking at what kind of person one should be whereas Kant and Mill answer such questions by looking at what kind of actions one should perform. In a nut-shell in my opinion, the theory that works best in our modern society is that of Immanuel Kant because it bases its argument on the principles of morality. This is because all the actions are will-driven hence what determines whether the action is right or wrong is the motive behind it. The fact that behind every action there is a will means that one is able to control their actions to be able to control their actions. It is also important to note that the three theories and can be combined by picking out the best aspects of the theories. For instance, for the theory of Aristotle alludes to the fact that an action is considered as either evil or good if it contributes well of the human good. While that of Mill suggest that an action is good if it brings the greatest good to the greatest number of people in the utilitarianism principle. Works Cited Aristotle. “Nicomachean Ethics”.MA: Harvard University Press. Rev. ed. Edited by H. Rackham. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, (1934): Pp 79-91 Kant, Immanuel. “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals”. MacMillan. Translated by Lewis WhiteBeck. 2nd Ed. New York.(1985): Pp 33-58 Mill, J. S. “Utilitarianism” in Utilitarianism and Other Essays. Penguin Books. Edited by Alan Ryan. London: Penguin Books. (1987): Pp 52-78 Read More