In Book 3 of his book “The Consolation of Philosophy,” he states that money and riches are poisonous and explicitly declares attributes that come along with them, such as honor and wealth, as harmful and inadequate to true happiness. To him, a person that does not have, is better off than a person that does. His logic follows the concept of attachment. Those who do not have money, are not attached to it, and those who have money will be overwhelmed with
I think we want to blindly believe that the unconscious has little to do with our actions but I believe we are wrong. The unconscious mind has much more power over us than the credit we give it. John Searle “argues that an unconscious mental state is one that in principle could become conscious he calls this the “Connection Principle”... and the notion of an unconscious intentional state is the notion of a state that is a possible conscious thought or experience”. The connection principle is an excellent way to label this issue. There is differently a connection between the unconscious and conscious and it affects the way we live our lives and how we treat people.
Bentham already faced this no easy task, as holding that pleasure motivates every action could explain how a moral principle that is characterized by selflessness and attention, however, to the generality of men? His response (broadcast until today all hedonism) is that there is also a pleasure, which also tend, coupled with altruism involves promoting the happiness of others. Thus, the principle of hedonistic utilitarianism is possible, but why is a moral duty? Bentham simply responds that this principle is unprovable, because it is a simple and first principle. Mill also defends the unprovability the utilitarian axiom.
The existential philosophy is connected with the view of the absurdity of human condition. The aesthetic existentialism shows an individual in a strange world. Man has no reality if he unthinkingly follows social law or convention suffering anguish and despair in his loneliness, he may nevertheless become what he wishes by the exercise of free will. The existentialist though they define in doctrine attitude agree on certain points, they are also connected with man’s being. They too feel that reason is insufficient to understand the mysteries of the universe, they are cautious that anguish is a universal phenomenon and also believe that morality has validity only when there is positive participation.
The actions that have the best consequences and thus permissible can sometimes be unjust. Conscience is the decisive sanction for the principle of utility. Mill suggested that every human possesses a natural sentiment of concerning others’ welfare. When such natural sentiment is encouraged, other people’s pleasure would become our standard of moral judgment. 8
There are a few significant aspects of this definition. First, it shows utility, or the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain, as both the basis of everything that people desire, and as the foundation of morality. However, utilitarianism does not say that it is right for individuals to simply pursue what makes them personally happy. Rather, morality is dictated by the greatest happiness principle, that is, moral action is that which increases the total amount of utility in the world.
Jeremy Bentham’s original ‘act’ theory of utility, argues that a good action produces pleasure, regardless of legalities, condoning drug use. However, Mill averred that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill p. 155), so actions should be assigned quantities based on the extent in which they foster happiness. Here, intellectual pleasures provide sustained satisfaction while sensual pleasures are short-lived and shallow. Accordingly, the shot-term elation produced by drug use may be assigned a relatively low worth of ‘5 hedons’. Conversely, the destruction of families due to the volatile temperament induced by recreational drugs would have a lasting effect – a value of ‘-200 hedons’ would be plausible.
Plato claimed that virtue is a type of knowledge since qualities are only beneficial when they are accompanied by knowledge. Virtue is always beneficial, thus, it must be a form of knowledge. If virtue is knowledge, vice – being the opposite of virtue – must be the lack of knowledge. As with every ethical system, Aristotle’s theory is subject to some criticism.
He does so when he makes the statement, “Observe then that, apart from those of a knowledgeable person, the other pleasures are neither entirely true nor pure but are like a shadow-painting...” (583b). Socrates defines pleasure and pain as opposites of each other; pleasure is the absence of pain and vice-versa. He then states that the pleasure derived for the money-lover and honour-lover are dependent on the body, therefore, cannot be considered as genuine pleasure. These two types of people are ruled by the appetitive and spirited parts.
Happiness is misunderstood in a sense that it can never be fully positive or worry free. Scientist struggle to define this emotion, just as we struggle to feel it at times. Untoward emotions are both an inevitable and necessary part of feeling happy; however, experiencing these emotions is not without benefits. Negative emotions can stir motivation, excite creativity, and encourage social interaction, leading these feelings to carry their own importance, instead of just existing as the opposite of happiness. Being motivated to participate in a specific event or perform a certain role is necessary throughout life, as it helps one to stay on task.
Conclusively, the ‘Experience Machine’ has illustrated an intriguing counter-argument to the hedonistic claims. By illustrating the concerns and problems of the machine Nozick in turn reveals flaws in the belief that the maximisation of pleasure and minimisation of pain is all that is required for one 's wellbeing. However, it is (arguably) equally as easy to find flaws in some of Nozick’s claims too. In this way, the ‘Experience Machine’ can be considered effective in the sense that it questions the hedonist and the concept of pleasure as holding the most intrinsic value yet still not fully convincing enough to fully dismiss the
Imagine being free of the mental chain known as a conscience. Unpleasant feelings such as guilt or regret would no longer be felt, theoretically sounding preferable. In actuality though, a conscience is what makes us truly human, and without it we would not have any compassion or empathy for others. This is why people without a conscience, also recognized by the name of psychopaths, are such a threat to society; they care exclusively for themselves and will not hesitate to harm someone, especially if the result is them achieving a certain goal they sought out to accomplish. It is a proven fact that, much like how all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares, all serial killers are psychopaths but not all psychopaths are serial
The same goes for an individual. Whatever option would bring that person the greatest pleasure would be the right choice and all other options would be wrong because they would be bringing them pain. Bentham states that when you consider an individual or a group then you can determine the value of the pleasure or pain felt in a situation through evaluating its intensity, duration, certainty/ uncertainty, propinquity/ remoteness, fecundity, and purity (41). This means that you can determine the amount of pleasure or pain a person will feel depending on how greatly it scores on these