Hedonism postulates that pleasure is the all and only bearer of intrinsic value and pain is all and only bearer of intrinsic disvalue. In this essay I will evaluate the coherence of the normative version of Hedonism, defined as the theory that says pleasure should be pursued and pain should be avoided and that the right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of net happiness. Prudential hedonism talks about pleasure being good for the one experiencing it. I will examine if this type of hedonism can be effectively defended by looking at some key objections and responses to those. Some objections to normative Hedonism a.
In the first place, since all obligations are supreme, it can’t help us to resolve conflicts ( for instance, telling the truth about something or protecting somebody that you love). The second problem with his theory is that it doesn’t take feelings into account. What Kant does say is that any accidental maxims that would require coercing somebody into doing something without consent or deceiving someone is wrong ( O’Neill, 113). But what O’Neill says is that when we act on such maxims we treat others as mere means and as things rather than as ends in themselves. Evidently she says, “if we act on such maxims, are acts or not only wrong button just: such acts wrong the particular others who are deceived or coerced” (O’Neill, 114).
Happiness can be determined by the amount of pleasure or pain. If an action brings about more pleasure than pain, then that action is morally right. Likewise, if an action brings about more pain than pleasure then that action is morally wrong. Only the ends of an action matters for Utilitarianism. Happiness is measured equally between individuals when assessing the consequences; however, if the happiness of two individuals is in question, then violating the rights of one individual is permissible if it increases the overall pleasure.
(Mill, utilitarianism, p.697) To put this into simpler terms, Mill is essentially saying events or experiences are desirable only when it is a source for pleasure, so actions are good when they lead to higher levels of general happiness and they are deemed as bad when it lowers your general level of happiness. However, it is important to note utilitarianism doesn’t say it is morally right for everyone to purse what make them alone happy but instead morality is dictated by what increases the total amount of utility in the world. Pursuing your own happiness at the expense of the majority of social happiness would be viewed as wrong by utilitarian’s. Mill then proceeded to say that morality requires impartial consideration of the interest of everyone involved, its not just about your own happiness. Utilitarian suggest that we make our moral decisions from the position of a benevolent, disinterested spectator.
Utilitarianism is a popular type of consequentialism, rule utilitarianism is a form of utilitarianism. Utilitarians think that happiness is the measure to judge the consequences, whether the action is right or wrong depends almost entirely on the good or bad consequences. Rule utilitarianism argues that if you obey the rules it will benefit the larger number of sentinel beings. more absolutist then relative, based on past experience. Rules generally promote the greater good, it is intended to guide us to make the best decisions for what needs to be done.
In his book, Mill states that happiness is desirable (Proof: because we desire it) and nothing other than happiness is desirable, as anything else desired is only a means to or part of happiness. Utilitarianism is normally referred to as the law of greatest good for the greatest number of people, which means that an action is only permissible if there was no other action available that could have lead to greater happiness. It also means that an action with bad consequences could be permissible if all the other options were to lead to worse results. Utilitarianism is different than other ethical theories in a way that right and wrong depend on the consequences of actions rather than the actions’ conformity to moral rules. Utilitarianism has some hallmark characteristics: 1.
To be an egoist is to put your own interests ahead of those of others. Gekko conjures the image of an egoist who is ruthless, unprincipled and inconsiderate. Some moral philosophers are praising virtues of egoism. Egoism could firstly be seen as a psychological fact and secondly an ethical ideal. Some may claim that egoism is a psychological fact and that deep down we are just selfish beings who acts to maximise our own interests.
A deed that is morally good is called the “right action”. In this paper, I argue that Kant’s method for distinguishing “right action” is better than Mill’s view because Mill’s view is based on the consequences of the action, whereas Kant defines “right action” by its motives. English Philosopher, John Stuart Mill, emphasized utilitarianism. The concept is that “the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the amount of good things in the world and decreasing the amount of bad things” (Nathanson). By following this concept, we understand that the “right action” is determined only by its consequence and nothing prior.
If, by trying to will what he has objective ground to will, he thereby frustrates the very thing he has objective ground to will, then it is not possible to will the principle of self-love to be universal law.19 If Wood is correct in his interpretation of Kant, then he seems to have provided a successful counterexample to Kant’s argument for FUL.20 19This example assumes that the principle of self-love is an objective principle on the basis of the objectivity of the end of happiness. However, it seems possible that the (hypothetical) objectivity of the end of happiness is better captured by some other practical principle. Perhaps there is another principle that is grounded in the end of happiness that actually could be willed to be universal law. Wood does not consider this possibility, but it seems relevant to the example. 20It is somewhat unclear whether Wood intends the violation of the categorical imperative to be a contradiction in the will of the egoist, or whether the result is a contradiction in conception/nature.
Before I move on to another part, it is necessary to say what is the complete virtue is. Aristotle told us,that the moral virtue includes courage, temperance and justice. These ingredients of the moral virtue develop by cultivating virtuous habits. But the moral virtue is not enough for true happiness: you should have nice appearance, a house, wealth(it should not be excessive), love, friendship and good health. Also, Aristotle claims, that «for moral excellence is concerned with pleasures and pains; it is on account of the pleasure that we do bad things, and on account of the pain that we abstain from noble ones.».