John Stuart Mills Utilitarianism - Essay Example

John Stuart Mills Utilitarianism John Stuart Mills Utilitarianism Mills observes many individuals misunderstanding utilitarianism by viewing utility as opposition to pleasure. It is evident that utility may be referred to as the remarkable happiness principle. One of the misconceptions about Unitarianism comes from the misunderstanding of happiness and contentment. Individuals who employ higher faculties often get less contented even though their pleasure is of higher character than of an animal.

This paper is a discussion of the mills statement that “it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied” in a clear and outright way in regards to my view. Mills view on this statement is on the quality of happiness that matters and not the quantity of pleasure. He is also of the view that one pleasure may be more valuable than another. If there is an instant where all that have exposure of both pleasures give a decided preference despite any act of moral obligation to choose it, mills sees it as the more desirable pleasure.

It is evident that if one pleasure is far above the other that it is preferred even when it is not satisfying there is another pleasure in the environment is capable to fill the discontent. Mills also view that no human being can be contented to be transformed into any of the lower creature for the benefit of full interest of a beast’s pleasure. It is apparent that a man cannot wish to sink into a lower level of life. This may be associated with the love of liberty and independence (Mill, 2002).

I agree with Mill in his statement that it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. The observation that even a noble character can bring less happiness to an individual as for the society it is beneficial. It is apparent that the outstanding happiness principle assures the total amount of happiness as the noble character even when it is not desirable to an individual. I agree also with Mills that no person in his conscience mind would be selfish even when he is persuaded that the fool is satisfied with his interest than he is with his.

Another reason I agree with Mills is that a being of higher dignity is entitled to more to be happy. A human being is capable of more specific suffering and certainly has access to more opportunities than creature of an inferior type (Mill, 2002). In the instance one try to know what satisfies a pig, one can find out is that it is food. It is evident due to its greedy nature a pig tends to eat a lot. As for human beings satisfaction is not only brought by food as surrounding oneself with people who love and care for you is essential.

Clothing and shelter bring a level of satisfaction to an individual. So human beings may be unsatisfied with one of this areas not necessarily food. It is evident that in spite of the liabilities a human being may encounter he cannot lower his dignity of becoming an animal to get satisfaction. In conclusion, the statement by Mills is aligned to happiness and content. Beings that the capacity of enjoyment is low have the greatest opportunity of having them fulfilled. As for the highly endowed being he will feel that any happiness constituted in the world is imperfect.

When an individual learn to bear the imperfections he cannot desire to be the being that is unconscious of the imperfections. It is evident this affirms to the Mills statement.ReferencesMill, S. J. (2002). One Guide to Ethics and Moral Philosophy. Web. Cmu.edu. Retrieved on 3rd April, 2015: http://www.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/80130/part1/sect4/BenandMill.html