For example, as morality is a part of rationale, the good performance of morality can lead an individual towards a virtuous and good life. Thus, when human function is done well, it is in accordance with virtue and best human life is achieved. In addition, it can be inferred that since Aristotle’s definition of happiness is to be virtuous, performing rational activity well can lead to happiness. In addition, Aristotle states, “if there are more than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most complete” (1098a18). This means that eventually there will be one virtue that is inclusive of all virtue and that displays an end, and this virtue will be in line with the self-sufficient and inclusive concept of happiness as the chief good.
Pleasure, in this case, is intrinsic or valuable for its own sake. There is no doubt that the purpose of self-harming is to achieve some form of relief, and that is its single most important goal for self-harmers. They may inflict pain on themselves for the purpose of feeling pleasure brought about by the body’s endorphins; they may make use of the physical pain to distract themselves from the emotional pain; but they want to feel pleasure just for the sake of feeling pleasure, corroborating the claim that pleasure is intrinsically good. According to a value hedonist, an instrumental good provides the most value for him or her, and the possibility to feel happy as well. In this case, the instrumental good is pain, although it is rather absurd to call it as such.
According to this principle, “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” –John Stuart Mill . It is now generally taken to be a form of consequentialism. Such a theory is in opposition to egoism, a view which gives predominance to self-interest at the expense of others. Utilitarianism is concerned with maximizing pleasure by minimizing pain. According to Bentham, the following criteria is used for measuring pleasure and pain: (1) intensity, (2) duration, (3) certainty, (4) remoteness, that is, how immediately the pleasures and pains will arise, (5) fecundity, that is, whether similar pleasures or pains will follow, (6) purity, that is, whether the pleasure is mixed with pain, (7) extent, that is, whether other pleasures and pains are experienced by other people.
While another philosophical concept, called utilitarianism, addresses an idea relatively close to the definition of altruism. In which, utilitarianism introduces the idea that “one should maximize pleasure and minimize pain for all parties involves in a decision” (Leib slide 12). To summarize, this concept states that there should be “the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people” (Palmer 273). This philosophical view makes the most sense in today’s society by eliminating things that cause pain away from
Mill and Kant have opposite idea and they support different moral philosophies. Mill exactly suppose the idea of social thinking, namely he claims that everyone attach an importance to other human beings. However, Kant considers that selfishness reflect people’s characteristics, in other words, each person should pay attention to themselves not others, because the most important thing for them is themselves. Kant also highlight that people can only behave in a good manner, if they have good will. In other words, Kant attach an importance to people’s instinct or characteristics, Mill gives weight to promoting happiness and dissolution of the pain.
Ernazar Kamal Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is an ethical theory, which determines the moral value by its utility. According to utilitarian opinion, the action is morally good, if it brings an overall maximum happiness. In this theory, as in consequentialism, consequence is important, and is some cases only matters. It is believed that one would achieve happiness, when there would be a pleasure and no pain. (John Stuart 2013) However, it is important to understand that utilitarianism considers not only the quantity, but also quality of the pleasure.
The Eudaimonic view proposes that happiness is more than just an emotion and a sense of satisfaction, and is instead reliant on self-realization. The Eudaimonic approach to happiness explores things like delayed gratification, exercising, morals and values. It is proposed that that by living in accordance with morals, a personal code of ethics, one’s perception of oneself and what’s important in the world; one can achieve happiness and a greater sense of well-being than one may be able to
While Mill takes a consequentialist approach, focused on the belief that actions are right if they are for the benefit of a majority, Kant is solely concerned with the nature of duty and obligation, regardless of the outcome. This paper will also reveal that Kantian ethics, in my opinion, is a better moral law to follow compared to the utilitarian position. According to J.S Mill, one should choose an action that maximizes the happiness
Utilitarianism makes ethical decisions based on the results that the action will cause. However, for the Kantian theory, it is believed that human reason is the only pure good, and they disregard the consequences. Kant discusses that the mentioned human reason should be devoid of the influence of desires or emotions. This opposes the Utilitarian view that ignores motives of an action as not important and approves the consequences. According to Kant, a purely good act is performed due to the person’s obligation to the categorical imperative.
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.