In order for society to strive for the greater good as a whole, Mill points out that only well-developed humans can make this possible. The reason for this is that a well-developed human, that is containing a strong sense of morality according to Mill’s standards, has control of his emotions.. One who exercises a strong moral worth is one who only wants to promote happiness to all other to gain unity. Mill writes, “…the horror of crime is in an ordinarily well-brought up young person” (Mill 73). What he means here is that young, under-developed people will not understand how to feel united because they have not yet learned that this promotion of happiness to others, and therefore unity, is a part of our consciousness and a part of our nature. It is our duty to strive for happiness within and for others.
Mill also points out that this is our moral obligation. That is, the principle of utility, which is achieving the greatest amount happiness for the greatest amount of people, is necessary for moral decision making. In order to understand our moral obligation we must experience breaks in our mass of feeling. Mill writes, “…a mass of feeling which must be broken through in order to do what violates our standard of right,” must be necessary in our experience in order for us to understand what constitutes our ‘origin of conscience’ (Mill 75). He then points out at this constitutes our ultimate sanction. We should not be embarrassed of other people’s moral standards, only be conscientious of all people and their feelings, whether they conflict with ours or not. Essentially we must be tolerant of all people, no matter what, because in order for humankind to strive for the greater good, we must gain an objective stance on other people’s feelings.
When we finally recognize general happiness as the ethical standard, it will constitute the strength of the utilitarian morality (Mill 77). Only with this understanding will we understand the kind of equality which is necessary for mankind’s unity. Again, as I stated in my title, Mill just wants everyone to understand each other’s ultimate goal so that we can promote happiness and get along. I know your parents don’t like a certain neighbor but they should not do anything to ruin their reputation, but they should understand that they are working for happiness in their individual way and should promote it if anything. Don’t get me wrong, I would get mad too if their dog was crapping in my yard but would you kill the dog, or just put up a fence?
7 comments:
While I like your concluding anecdote and agree with your summation of mill's general theory, I do not believe that universal happiness is attainable. While I do understand that we are, in a sense, brought up to avoid maxims that would put other people's happiness at risk, the various norms and beliefs in the world make it impossible to appeal to everyone's expectations of happiness. For example, as we strive to do well in school and eat healthy or exercise daily we seek to appeal to the academic expectations of our parents and the aesthetic expectations of our society. However I do not believe it is possible for their to be universal happiness as I believe "what might be right for you, might not be right for some...it takes different strokes to rule the world." (Different strokes theme song).
Although I agree with what Stephanie is saying for the most part, I dont believe that it is impossible to have happiness within a society. It is a very hard thing to accomplish, and yes people do have different beliefs and views on life, but it is still ones job to make a society livable and a happy environment or else the environment will never work. So it is correct when Mill states that we must be conscientious of all people and their feelings. Happiness is a large environment definitely promotes happiness to others and to oneself.
Although I do believe in Mills’ general utilitarian theory of a universal happiness as our moral end in life, I don’t believe that it is possible to ever attain. It is always possible to promote a certain type of happiness, but not all people in society have the same conception of what happiness really consists of. Furthermore, although I believe that there should be some sort of universal sense of happiness, our society has become too concerned with our own individual happiness, as opposed to the happiness of all others. In this sense, I believe that I would side more with the ideas of Sidgwick rather than Mills when he states that there is no true sense of a universal happiness; however there is Common Sense, which is the closest to a utilitarian happiness. Also, in regard to your final question, I think that most people would put up a fence in following with my discussion of how most individuals look out for their own self-interests. It would make more sense to make yourself happy first, fore that will ultimately lead to the happiness, or the closest thing to happiness, for other individuals that surround you.
I agree with Stephanie here. We must ask ourselves if Mill's thoughts and ideas regarding the "general happiness" are realistic. To get 6 billion people in the world to agree on something for the greater good, or in this case general happiness, would be impossible. Not everyone is wired the same way and people would be selfish and look out for their own happiness instead of sacrificing it so others can be happy. At the same time, you would have to get people to agree to utilitarian morality in order to reach the general happiness. What we have here, according to Mill, is easier said than done and is unrealistic in our world today.
I think you are exactly right in describing Mill's theory of general happiness; if everyone were morally mature the general populous would be happy. To me this sounds like a utopian form of society, extremely far-fetched and unattainable. Sure, little things like putting up a fence instead of killing a dog help work towards the happiness of the population, but there would always be the neighbor who chose to kill the dog. As stated in the original post, the world is full of younger, under(morally)developed people which therefore makes general happiness more difficult to attain. Overall I think Mill has a good idea and at one time it may have worked, but in today's society it is much too idealistic.
Johnny, reading your last question made me consider a slightly different scenario involving a dog and neighbors. Using your clear summary of what Mill considers to be a correct form of ethics (utilitarianism), I'm lead to believe that we are often called to sacrifice our own happiness in order to contribute to the happiness of rational beings as a whole. So then consider this: the neighbor's dog (that you don't like) barks loudly 24 hours a day 7 days a week, and multiple houses in the area are suffering because of it. Nearly anyone is able to sleep through the noise. Would Mill's moral precept then allow you to kill the dog? After all, you may be lessening the happiness of its owners, but you would be alleviating pain from a much larger group of people (possible including yourself). I know that if I were given the option I would never kill the dog, due to the massive guilt I would feel after. But I wonder if Mill would say that the greater happiness of the neighborhood outweighs in importance my own compromised happiness. Hmmm...
I agree with Stephanie, universal happiness is not a realistic goal. People need to feel sad sometimes to truly appreciate happiness when they are happy, of course once people are not sad the majority of the time. However I do agree with Mill when he says it is a moral end. It is definitely something we should strive for, but just may not be possible to ever acquire. For example, for one person to be happy it may involve conflicting with somebody else’s pursuit of happiness like applying for a job where one candidate will get the job and others will lose out.
Post a Comment