Hedonism and the desire-satisfaction theory of welfare are typically seen as archrivals in the contest over identifying what makes one’s life better. It is surprising, then, that the most plausible form of hedonism is desire satisfactionism. The hedonism theory focuses on pleasure/happiness while the desire-satisfaction theory elucidates the relevance of fulfilling our desires. Pleasure, in some points of view is the subjective satisfaction of desire. I will explain the similarities and the differences between the desire-satisfaction theory of value and hedonism.
This essay will reject the utilitarian claim as to always act as to maximize utility. In order to exhibit why this claim fails, this argument will be based on the most refined description of utility, namely, preference satisfaction utilitarianism, an action which is right, because it produces the most of what is intrinsically valuable, which is more than just the ultimate consequence of pleasure as suggested by the hedonistic utilitarian but instead, is the maximization of individual human preferences being satisfied in relation to the world and therefore, this action creates the maximum balance of happiness over unhappiness for all human beings concerned. This essay will present three objections against and three separate responses in defence
Pleasure is a fleeting moment of which we receive joyful bliss of amusing experiences that make us feel good. However it is not something that we can have all the time. Pleasure is something that we chase in routine, or something that our brain has adapted to seek. But the true meaning of happiness is the state of being content, when life fulfils every and each of your necessity. In other words, perfect happiness comes when you feel satisfied and could not have it any better.
Utilitarianism is a normative moral theory based on consequentialism-its fundamental idea is that “do what produces the best consequence”. In more detail the theory dictates that actions are only right if they promote happiness and produce the greatest amount of happiness; “actions are right in 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 1863) http://www.utilitarianism.com/mill2.htm Utilitarianism states that pleasure and happiness are intrinsically valuable and that pain and suffering are intrinsically invaluable and that every action that has value should either promote happiness or impede suffering. This emphasis on happiness or pleasure as a guide to making moral decisions, makes it a type of hedonism known as Hedonistic Utilitarianism and thus it can be criticized in a similar way to hedonism. (Luke Mastin,2008http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_utilitarianism.html.
Consequentialism refers to the principle that “an act’s rightness or wrongness should be judged by its consequences.”10 This guided us during decision-making that we should choose an action which can maximize good consequences. 1 Utilitarianism, which represents the most well-known form of consequentialism, stated that we should make our choices with the one produces the maximum pleasure for the largest number of people.2 This theory has long been subject to criticism for failing to do the moral rightness. In this essay, I shall discuss three main criticisms of consequentialist approach to decision making addressed in class and how we can respond to tthem. 1) Failure to respect individuals’ rights As per Bernard Williams, “Utilitarianism fails to respect the fundamental integrity of a person”.3 As long as the majority are satisfied, minorities can be abused. As discussed in the frictional example of ‘The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas’, by living in a Omelas society where utilitarianism prevails, our wellbeing is said to be built on the misery of others.4 However, every coin has two sides.
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. Pursuing one 's own happiness at the expense of social happiness would not be moral under this framework.
In the matter of good and evil, can pessimistic judgments about life, such as the one expressed in the quotation by Schopenhauer, be an objective philosophical analysis of human existence? “For evil is precisely that which is positive, that which makes itself palpable; and good, on the other hand, i.e. all happiness and all gratification, is that which is negative”, (Schopenhauer, A, 1850, p:41). First and foremost, the philosopher’s thought on the values behind ‘good’ and ‘evil’ reflects what he believes is the most honest depiction life. Schopenhauer considers happiness to be 'lack of suffering ' and goodness to be 'lack of evil
The pursuit of happiness is defined as an individual and collective activity. Given that philosophers defined happiness as an issue that precedes morality in life, it is important that an individual consistently seek to exude happiness. For this reason, the use of drugs as a substitute and means of being happy is a flawed and often completely misguided of what it means to be happy (Haybron, 2011). It is important that virtue motivate the motivation of personal happiness. Exuding empathy, kindness and gratitude are some of the approaches that are likely to realize collective personal happiness.
In the Authoritarian style of government on the other hand, has many benefits, advantages and like any other type of government, has its own disadvantages and weaknesses. I remember in our previous discussions, we talked about Hobbes’ state of nature which states that a person is naturally selfish and that without a government, there would be total chaos so in result, man agrees to be a part of a government. In this sense, man would agree to be under that government and would agree to be served. It is not assured that there would not be chaos if one joins a government but through this form of government, war would be lessened – and it could be render void. Under this type of government, there are benefits and advantages as well as restrictions.
However, when we analyzed aesthetics,ethics and epistomology philosophically, aesthetics less philosophically central than the others. Kant examines the critique of aesthetics with these two major tasks: first, to bridge the seperation between the theoretical knowledge of the first book and the practical knowledge of the second book through a third, intermediary legislate, which he calls “judgment”; and second, to reconcile the subjectivity of aesthetic experience with a priori, communal standards of taste ,which are based predominately on feelings of pleasure and displeasure. And, these judgments are called as "determinant judgment" which belongs to the understanding, and refers to a given universal concept, and "reflective judgment" which belongs to the faculty of judgment, and refers to no given universal concept, and it is divided into three kinds: systematic, teleological and aesthetical. As i said earlier,in Kant 's usage there are three types of aesthetic judgment, and these are judgments of agreeable, judgments of the beauty and, judgments of the sublime. The first section "Analytic of the Beautiful" aims to analyse