In J.S. Mill’s Utilitarianism, Mill alleges in Chapter IV “Of What Sort of Proof the Principle of Utility is Susceptible” that the first principles are not capable of proof by reasoning. He reiterates this basis initially introduced in Chapter II, but goes a step further in his explanation of the utilitarian doctrine as “that happiness is desirable, and that the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things being only desirable as means to that end” (Mill 35). The remainder of his argument arguably justifies this statement. Because we cannot ascertain this principle through reason, Mill argues that we know it through experience. Mill maintains the position that “No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable, except that each person, so far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness” (Mill 35). At first, this appears to be a very immature and unfounded argument (“I’m right because I know I’m right”) that does little to address objections to the doctrine of utility. But upon further investigation, Mill proves that the desire of things other than happiness can be decidedly distinguished from the sole desire of happiness. Mill explains that “Happiness is not an abstract idea but a concrete whole” consisting of many separate parts (Mill 38). These parts range from the love of music or the desire for health to the love of money. According to the utilitarian doctrine, virtue is not a universal but it is just as authentic as the desire for happiness. So for those who desire virtue, they do so not as “a means to happiness, but as a part of their happiness” (Mill 37). Therefore, virtue seems almost as an optional component to happiness. Unlike Aristotle, Mill does not believe that the perfection of a virtuous character will lead to the ultimate end of happiness. He acquiesces that although it may be a part of one’s happiness, the desire for the attainment of virtue is not a road map to happiness.
Returning to Mill’s initial question about what sort of proof this principle is susceptible to, he answers that “if human nature is so constituted as to desire nothing which is not either a part of happiness or a means of happiness – we can have no other proof, and we require no other, that these are the only things desirable” (Mill 39). Mill argues that since all human beings desire the same thing – happiness (whether directly or indirectly, in some way or another) than there can exist no opposition to this argument and he does not require a proof to prove his point. Is this true? Do we truly need no logical or rational proof to justify the pursuit of happiness? Also, how can virtue be optional to happiness according to the doctrine of utilitarianism, if this same doctrine requires one to promote the greatest happiness of others? Can one help promote another’s happiness without a virtuous character? Or does the pursuit of a virtuous character (according to Aristotle or other philosophers) obstruct or blur the achievement of happiness?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I like Mill’s idea that virtue can be a part of happiness. I felt that Aristotle only gave one option for being happy while Mill accepts that some people may want different things and don’t necessarily have to undergo everything Aristotle proposed to be happy. I also agree that no reason can be given why people want to be happy because like Professor Vaught said then that would make happiness second to something else. Happiness is a first principle thus it has no examples of explanation. The fact that everyone wants happiness is a result of why everyone wants happiness. I do think that people can promote one’s happiness without be virtuous. For example, being hired, that person who hired you may not be virtuous but he/she is helping you realize one of your goals which promotes your happiness.
I do like how Mill points out the difference between Aristotle's notion of virtue and happiness and the first principle. From what I took from the post and Aristotle in general, is that Aristotle had so much criteria to be even subject to fulfilling one's need for happiness. Temperant = Virtue = Eventual happiness. That's a lot to take in. Mill has let young philosophers all over the world calm down about leading a less than adequate life. Although I will say that virtuous people are hard to come by and a truly happy person is hard to come by as well. Mill provides people with an explanation that makes it seem that you may have made some bad decisions but you can still lead a happy life. Especially if you help others around you.
I totally agree with the two comments above. Although Aristotle believes that for one to be happy one must live only a virtuous life. I think one may have many different views to what a virtuous life may be to them. We are supposed to follow laws that are meant to be our guidelines on how to live our lives, one must also test the boundaries for themselves. We must figure out the things that make us happy and the things we need to do to live a virtuous life, which in the end will lead us to a happy life. I think it is necessary to believe that virtue, as stated above, is a part to happiness. Mill, I feel is looking at life in a more realistic way, in which, good or bad might come our way, but if we want to be happy we will be happy.
In regards to the reflection nearing the bottom of the blog post which concerns the question of whether virtue can be optional to happiness, I contend that it would, indeed, be optional. Mill emphasizes that the guiding point of a Utilitarian concept of morality is happiness - the ultimate end; the sake for which we pursue all other ends, as each of these supportive ends would prove to be a part of this ultimate end (37). In addition, as corresponding to the achievement of happiness, Mill ascertains that desire is the key element in the production of any kind of will; in other words, we must have the will to even begin to desire something. And in turn, this will "is amendable to habit" (40).
Now, back to the question of whether virtue is an optional notion as related happiness- I would affirm this. In the sense described above, virtue is technically optional, insofar as it seems that we can will, and thus put into habit, whatever we may consider desirable (whether it be virtue or some other ideology) and necessary to achieve our own notion of happiness. Mill believes that "moral feelings are not innate but acquired" (31), and as such, we would have no grounds upon which to label virtue as mandatory. We merely develop the will to act virtuously as a consequence of our experiences concerning virtuous acts, insofar a these empirical encounters provided us with a pleasurable feeling.
I do agree with you about the confusion in Mill's argument “No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable, except that each person, so far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness” (Mill 35). However I do agree with Mill in that happiness has no reasons for why people strive to obtain it. For everyone there is something different that makes them happy. Although in some cases two people may have the same thing making them happy, most people have completely different ideas on what happiness is to them. In answering the question you pointed out at the end I don't think that we necessarily need a logical or rational proof to justify out pursuit of happiness. Since happiness is the ultimate end, that's the only proof we need. I also think that virtue is optional. Some people are completely happy without a bit of virtue but in this case maybe they aren't really happy.
I would just like to add that Mill does point out that virtue is not naturally a part of happiness but it can become a part of happiness if the will desires it. Because desiring something is the same thing as thinking something is pleasant according to Mill, most of us do think the virtues are pleasant and therefore can possibly result in happiness. Our will originates in desire but one can will a thing that it doesn't desire our of traditional thoughts that we think we should follow. Also to add, I agree that we truly need no logical or rational proof to justify the pursuit of happiness because there are many people who may logically comprehend the pursuit of happiness but still cannot attain it.
Post a Comment