To Schopenhauer, happiness cannot be understood if the elements of its ' absence are not understood. Many comprehend life to be a balancing act, that these elements equalize the fulfillment of want and desire with suffering and misfortune. The same individuals would then assume that life because it carries these harmonizing features, is positively good. Because many believe life is presented as "good", suffering bestows itself as an exception or aberration to the general rule of life whereas, Schopenhauer believes it to be the other way around. He believes that life is defined by pain, drudgery, calamity, desire and that the moments of pleasure and joy are the exception to life.
The issue Khazan discusses in “No Spanking, No Time-Out, No Problems”, parents need to change their own behavior, before wanting to change their child’s behavior. Khazan confronts the issue of punishment along with behavior using a persuasive writing style to share her thoughts on punishment: “Punishment might make you feel better, but it won’t change the kid’s behavior” (Khazan 25). Khazan presents a child psychologist, Alan Kazdin’s to speak on parenting interventions. Along with parenting intervention, Khazan utilizes her interview with Kazdin, presenting a more of an understanding towards the issue of punishment. Utilizing Kazdin’s parenting interventions, he uses examples to prove that; punishment should not be used to fix negative behavior.
Utilitarianism only considers one normative factor, the maximization of overall happiness, consequently, it often conflicts with our common-sense morality and permits immoral actions as well as great individual deviation from social norms. For instance, utilitarianism permits immoral practices such as sadism by implying that sadistic acts are the right acts to perform if the sadist derives more pleasure from this practice than their victims derive pain. This is because they would be maximizing the overall amount of happiness/well-being. This belief conflicts with the existing moral intuitions of many who believe that the torturing of innocent people for pleasure is by no means acceptable, let alone the right action to perform. An example that demonstrates instances where utilitarianism can give us the morally wrong answer as to which act we ought to perform, involves a surgeon who is faced with the decision of killing one healthy patient, harvesting their organs and transplanting them into five patients who are dying in order to save their lives or doing nothing and allowing the five sick patients to die.
I will agree with Mill and argue that higher pleasures are better than lower pleasures. In Mill’s essay, he defines Utilitarianism: ‘’actions are right in the proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure’’ (Mill, 7). Therefore, Utilitarianism according to Mill considers actions to be right or wrong based on whether or not they make humans happy. He emphasizes that the theory applies only to humans and ‘’ the estimation of pleasure should be supposed to depend on quantity alone’’(Mill, 8), introducing this way his theory of higher and lower pleasures.
Kant’s categorical imperative as known as The Formula Of The End In Itself states that people should act in a certain way that you always treat humanity and always consider them as an end but never as mere means. This moral theory opposes to Utilitarianism, which supports the “greatest happiness principle”. According to “greatest happiness principle” people ought to act in such a way that produce the greatest amount of happiness for the
This seems to make sense, as if one is a moral person, there must be some aim of the morality. She continues this by saying “For surely he must want others to be happy. To deny this would be to deny that benevolence is a virtue-and who wants to deny that?” (47) By saying this, she says that benevolence, or caring about others’ welfare or happiness, is definitely a virtue. She then continues, “a benevolent person must often aim at the good of others and call it ‘a good thing’” (48). This provides an adequate definition of what a benevolent person is.
Act Utilitarianism, being a hedonistic view, promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest good, however Rule Utilitarianism is based on rules of thumb, which may contradict themselves. For example, Rule Utilitarianism makes progress in the sense of being moral saints. This is based on how it takes “into account the effects of the rule or practice itself” (pg. 137). Those whose needs have been met who want to give a portion of their income to the less fortunate promote the greater good.
This kind of self-lover would “give up money in a case in which his friends would get more money, since there would be money for the friend, but a beautiful act for himself, so that he distributes the greater good to himself” (174:1169a27-30). In a narrow sense, this person is acting out of self-love or selfishness. However, unlike the irrational self-lover, everyone “approves of and praises those who are exceptionally zealous about beautiful actions” (173:1169a7-8). Indeed, Aristotle writes that any “good person ought to be a lover of self, since he will both profit himself and benefit the others by performing beautiful actions” (173:1169a12-13). This is why Aristotle considers the self-lover to be another useful paradigm in exploring human
Ayn Rand and all people who believe egoism is the only virtue are inhumane. The word humane means to show compassion which is an act of altruism, that Ayn Rand and all her followers are firmly against. Altruism is when the wellbeing of a group is more important than the rights and needs of an individual. Egoism is when an individual’s right and needs are more important than the wellbeing of a group. All humans should be more altruistic than egoistic, because altruism allows people to be compassionate and to serve those in need.
As children, we were taught by our parents that it is wrong to lie, cheat, and steal. As we grow up and enter into the real world with some knowledge of right and wrong, we see, first hand, the importance of ethics as well as its complexity. The role of ethics in our society and in an individual’s life is very necessary because it has a large influence on today, as well as the future. We need to learn about good ethics because they guide our decisions, make us who we are, and determine our future. We are taught the difference between the right and wrong since our childhood but are always told that the lying and cheating always makes things difficult but when students go to school and college they are faced with different dilemma as then the cheating seems to be the easier way to get good grades.
John Stuart Mill is a utilitarian. He believes that all sentient creators are psychologically hedonistic; that we naturally seek out pleasures and avoid pains (Pg. 88). As a utilitarian, he focuses on ethical hedonism, the idea that we ought to maximize our happiness. To Mill, the right actions to take are those that promote happiness, the wrong actions to take are those that promote pain (Pg.