Preview

Mill's View of Lower/Higher Pleasures

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1249 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Mill's View of Lower/Higher Pleasures
Mill is a utilitarian philosopher who lives by the Greatest Happiness Principle, in which there is a clear distinction between both lower and higher pleasures. Though thoroughly explained, one must also question the justification of these pleasures. Many of these beliefs leave the reader hanging on the edge, with further questions that need to be answered. What is the exact distinction between the lower and higher pleasures? And how are higher pleasures measured as most valuable? How clearly is Mill’s view of lower and higher pleasures justified?
Mill, unlike some utilitarians (Epicureans), believes that there is an immense distinction between higher and lower pleasures. Lower pleasures, according to Mill, are those based off of sensations. “Few human creatures would consent to be changed into an of the lower animals for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast’s pleasures…” (Mill, Self-Love 506) Both humans and animals are capable of experiencing these pleasures, but what Mill believes is that only Humans are capable of the higher pleasures, and therefore no intelligent human being would chose to become an animal incapable of these more valuable pleasures. The lower pleasures are based off of sensations in which include things such as our five senses: taste, hearing, touch, sight and the sense of smell. One will experience these pleasures multiple times daily, thus reducing the amount of satisfaction one feels when experiencing a lower pleasure. Mill believes that animals and human beings both share similar experiences when it comes to the lower pleasures, but that only human beings are capable of the higher pleasures. How one measures the justification of the distinction between the lower pleasures and the higher pleasures is based mostly on opinion. It does make sense that since human beings are most definitely superior in the intellectual field that in order to achieve a greater value of happiness one must experience the higher pleasures, but

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Better Essays

    Mill vs Dostoevsky

    • 1061 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Mill views pleasure and happiness as being the same. “…that pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends; and that all desirable things are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain.” ( Mill. Utilitarianism. 10). He does not acknowledge that pain and misery may actually bring about happiness, this is one of the major flaws in his principle. “… the enjoyment here consisted precisely in the hyperconsciousness…

    • 1061 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    To summarize this Mill’s chapter two about what utilitarianism is, basically meaning that individuals would find some kind of pleasure that are more desirable and more valuable to themselves are inherently good. Utilitarianism is pleasurable when the actions are good; when the actions are bad the pleasure decreases. To Mill he compares human pleasures are as equal as animalistic pleasures. It depends on what kind of pleasure people are seeking. For this purpose, Mill mentioned that people would have to look within quality of the pleasure people are seeking as well as quantity.…

    • 387 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    In chapter number one titled “General Remarks” Mill starts off by talking about what is to be seen as morally right and morally wrong things, yet no one has a complete understanding for what is actually morally right and wrong. He then talks about “Moral Faculty” and two different views or opinions on the subject. Mill states in his text that “Our moral faculty, according to all those of its interpreters who are entitled to the name of thinkers, supplies us only with the general principles of moral judgments; it is a branch of our reason, not of our sensitive faculty; and must be looked to for the abstract doctrines of morality, not for perception of it in the concrete. The intuitive, no less than what may be termed the inductive, school of ethics, insists on the necessity of general laws.” The quote that Mill states is very outstanding for the reason of “applying the concept of law to ones certain case,” this is what Mill is trying to relate between the two different views. Mill also states that the differences between the two is where the “source from which they derive their authority” but yet they both agree on the concept of “moral law.” So as the chapter is coming to an end Mill comments on how “Utilitarianism has had a tremendous influence in shaping moral doctrines, even among the people who reject the principle.” Since our class had just been reading text from Kant his “idea of law” or “will” is still fresh in my mind and can easily be seen as a difference to what Mill is stating in the “Utilitarianism.” I can directly relate the two ideas because Kant’s “will” for a rational being may be thought of “the objective laws of reason and morality” or “subjective needs and interests,” which is what Mill is talking about in his two different views of “Moral Faculty.” Kant also states that “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” but Mill argues the point…

    • 571 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Work Cited

    • 1410 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Mill’s theory of higher pleasures states that when it comes down to pleasures and satisfaction, people tend to set these empirical grounds for these…

    • 1410 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Utilitarianism, the theory that actions are right if they useful for the majority, the greatest happiness and pleasure for the greatest and majority of people. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) was an English moral philosopher concerned with social reform, Bentham wanted people to seek pleasure and avoid pain. On the other hand John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) who was a great admirer of Bentham; however, he believed in the principle of utility and the idea that please should be ranked according to quality not quantity. For example: eating a mars bar is a poorer pleasure compared to listening to poetry. Mill believing in pleasures of the mind is greater than pleasures of the body (eating). Within this essay I shall be discussing the different views of Bentham and Mill and how their theories are strengths for the utilitarian system.…

    • 824 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Mills then developed higher pleasure and lower pleasure; lower pleasures would be physical pleasures such as sex, alcohol while higher pleasures would be things like love and friendship and believed everyone would desire higher pleasure ‘it is better to be a pig dissatisfied than a pig satisfied’. Therefore, rule utilitarianism fits more with John Mills theory as this means moral rules are formulated based on utilitarian principles and the individual can apply these situations to judge whether the act is acceptable or…

    • 972 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    After discussing the first argument, I will now concentrate on the second critic views utilitarianism definition by Mill as insufficient mainly because of diverting the focus from the desired nature of pleasure to desirable aspect. According to this critic, the good actions are viewed as desirable that is thought to be wrong. However, this claim is insufficient in showing the weakness of utilitarianism. I defend utilitarianism against this claim because an individual must desire something for the same to become a pleasurable…

    • 83 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    John Stuart Mill

    • 1736 Words
    • 7 Pages

    1. John Stuart Mill – On Virtue and Happiness (1863)The utilitarian doctrine is, that happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things being only desirable as means to that end. What ought to be required of this doctrine, what conditions is it requisite that the doctrine should fulfill, to make good its claim to be believed? The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible, is that people hear it; and so of the other sources of our experience. In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it. If the end which the utilitarian doctrine proposes to itself were not, in theory and in practice, acknowledged to be an end, nothing could ever convince any person that it was so. No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable, except that each person, so far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness. This, however, being a fact, we have not only all the proof which the case admits of, but all which it is possible to require, that happiness is a good, that each persons happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of all persons. Happiness has made out its title as one of the ends of conduct, and consequently one of the criteria of morality. But it has not, by this alone, proved itself to be the sole criterion. To do that, it would seem, by the same rule, necessary to show; not only that people desire happiness, but those they never desire anything else. Now it is palpable that they do desire things which, in common language, are decidedly distinguished from happiness. They desire, for example, virtue, and the absence of vice, no less really than pleasure and the absence of pain. The desire of virtue is not as universal, but it is as authentic…

    • 1736 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Marx and Mills

    • 1200 Words
    • 5 Pages

    John Stuart Mill suggests that a person's ethical decision-making process should be based solely upon the amount of happiness that the person can receive. Although Mill fully justifies himself, his approach lacks certain criteria for which happiness can be considered. Happiness should be judged, not only by pleasure, but by pain as well. This paper will examine Mill's position on happiness, and the reasoning behind it. Showing where there are agreements and where there are disagreements will critique the theory of Utilitarianism. By showing the problems that the theory have will reveal what should make up ethical decision-making. John Stuart Mill supports and explains his reasoning in his book, Utilitarianism. Mill illustrates the guidelines of his theory. Mill defines utilitarianism as the quest for happiness. His main point is that one should guide his or her judgements by what will give pleasure. Mill believes that a person should always seek to gain pleasure and reject pain. Utilitarianism also states that the actions of a person should be based upon the "greatest happiness principle". This principle states that ethical actions command the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Mill further explores the need for pleasure by noting "a being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy." . He acknowledges that some pleasures are more alluring than others are. He adds to this by making known that when placing value in things to calculate pleasure, not only quantity important but quality as well. Mill's criteria for happiness is easily understood, some statements that he gives are questionable. John Stuart Mill plainly laid out what he believes that the basis for ethical decision-making. First, the pursuit of pleasure is directly related to happiness. This idea can be easily accepted. It is natural for a person to focus his goals on things that will bring him pleasure. It would be absurd if someone's goal in life was to be poor and…

    • 1200 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Kant Vs Mill

    • 1231 Words
    • 5 Pages

    This view forms the basis of the contrasting argument between him and Kant .Mill principle of `utility also known as the greatest happiness is that, when people act out of duty it justifies the utilitarian principle as a foundation of morals.It explains that actions are right in proportions and promote overall human happiness of everything or anything that can ;possibly tolerate pain.it focus on the consequence of actions.Not on rights or ethical sentiments.it is best to be cultivated and noble…

    • 1231 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Mill's Utilitarianism

    • 1250 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Utilitarianism derives itself from a combination of hedonism and consequentialism. Hedonism suggests that consequences are good as long as they lead to pleasure, which is the ultimate good in the case of utilitarianism. On the other hand, consequentialism argues that the right action is the one that produces the best consequences, and maximizes utility. Mill argues that the only factor relevant to actions is the amount of pleasure or pain produced, not the motives that propel action. Utilitarianism seems to be based off of a calculation aiming to minimize pain and maximize pleasure. While justice can initially be seen as an objection to this school of ethics, it can be argued that justice complements, and does not challenge the principles…

    • 1250 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    How does Mill argue that some pleasures are better than others? As irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it that is the more desirable pleasure.…

    • 362 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Firstly, Mill is cognizant that critics have asserted that it is demeaning to assume that the meaning of life is simply satisfying others, or satisfying oneself; inasmuch as it was (although ethics isn’t necessarily analogous with life’s purpose), humans would not be superior to other apparently less significant organisms. Mill responds by sharing that, foremost, it is degrading to merely assume that humans are incapable of experiencing pleasure more rewarding than “that of which swine are capable” (Mill 8:2). Moreover, Mill claims that “for if the sources of pleasure were precisely the same to human beings and to swine, the rule of life which is good enough for the one would be good enough for the other,” (Mill 8:4-7) followed by the contention that “Human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites and, when once made conscious of them, do not regard anything as happiness which does not include their gratification” (Mill 8:9-12). On that account, Mill distinguishes the distinctions between animalistic pleasures and human pleasures – he argues that pleasures associated with inferior organisms are unalike pleasures of human beings. By that means, it should be understood that there are different degrees of pleasure that each have respective quality corresponding to one’s satisfaction. In…

    • 1232 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Relating the pleasures during experiences, Mill thinks this method can’t be applied. A better way to arrange his arguments and scrutinize them is dealing with them as overall experiences instead of finding means to value on every instance the particular pleasures.…

    • 703 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Mill defines "happiness" to be both intellectual and sensual pleasure. He argues that we have a sense of dignity that makes us prefer intellectual pleasures to sensual ones. He adds that the principle of utility involves assessing an action's consequences, and not the motives or character traits of the agent. Mill argues that the principle of utility should be seen as a tool for generating secondary moral principles, which promote general happiness. Thus most of our actions will be judged according to these secondary principles. He feels that we should appeal directly to the principle of utility itself only when faced with a moral dilemma between two secondary principles. For example, a moral principle of charity dictates that one should feed a starving neighbour, and the moral principle of self-preservation dictates that one should feed oneself. If one does not have enough food to do both, then one should determine whether general happiness would be better served by feeding my neighbour, or feeding oneself.…

    • 796 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays