For me personally being in my happiest state consists of the simplest of things life has to offer; cold coffee, dark chocolate and fast cars. But how Mill would classify such things is unbenounced to me. Nor do I find myself to really care because I feel it makes me happy and that’s all that should matter in the end.
In Mill’s chapter two of utilitarianism, he is quoted as saying “ it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied, and if the pig and fool are of different opinions, it is because they only know one side of the question.”
I must say, the first time I read this the first thing that ran threw my mind was ‘what a pretentious jerk.’ Then after further dissection of the quotation I have come to understand it better, just not completely. In my opinion I believe that according to Mill, happiness is broken down; quantity versus quality and animal versus human and that the quality of happiness is valued greater over quality and human pleasures are greater then those of someone seeking animalistic pleasure.
Human please has a greater worth that that of animalistic because it requires a higher demand of our intellectual faculties. Therefore, if you were to compare watching TV over a Broadway production the person respecting human pleasure would rather watch a Broadway play because they are more cultured and appreciate the higher intellectual gain. If the person seeking pleasures derived from just TV, than they value the quantity of the pleasure over the content and quality. The result of watching TV is then to be considered animalist pleasures because they are not administering their intellectual capabilities. While I am not sold one hundred percent on Mill’s theory, I see the message that he is trying to get across, that the cliché ignorance is bliss may not always be the case. Furthermore, Mill’s theory does not always hold true in all instances. For example, there are some that find pleasure in simple food rather then that artfully prepared by a chef after experiencing both.
While I am not judging anyone who prefers animalistic pleasures over human or vice versa, I know now that Mill’s quote regarding humans and pigs is refereeing to the people who are best qualified to judge the quality of pleasure are the people who have been on both sides of the fence so to speak. That is because these people who are so highly qualified have experienced both the animal and human pleasures life has to offer and realize that human pleasures may contain more worth in regards to happiness as opposed to others.
22 comments:
I see how you may have had some doubts about Mill's opinion on this topic. It is hard to understand what he means when most of the people our age would rather watch the movie versions of books than actually read them and would rather get a slice from Pugsley's then caviar from a 5 star restaurant in Manhattan.
I feel I become most opposed to this idea when we use these basic examples to illustrate it. For example, in the TV vs. Broadway case, there are more elements we need to examine. Is the show we're watching a show like Arrested Development (which requires active viewing and contains jokes that are so deep many don't even realize they are embedded) and is the play something like, I don't know, High School Musical...the musical. I think even Mill would agree that there are some ranges where TV is more of a human pleasure than an animalistic one.
I think for this theory to be completely concrete, it needs to focus on the purely animalistic motives (i.e. hunger, lust, survival).
Although I do see Mills’ distinction between animalistic v. human pleasures in regard to the example of watching a Broadway play or TV, I don’t really think that anyone could or should be able to judge which is better for society. As the previous comment states, there are some TV shows that are more intellectually stimulating that some Broadway shows that are currently being performed; however, this brings into the argument our own personal tastes, which Mill may have wanted to avoid. Humans should definitely be able to distinguish for themselves which pleasures they wish to partake in, then decide whether it enhances their intellectual view of the world/life. Furthermore, although I do not agree that one pleasure is always better than another, I do believe that in order to be a well-rounded individual you should try to partake in every activity that is available, even if that means going to Broadway to watch a musical for one day instead of watching a new episode of Lost.
I agree with Jenna, although Mill’s theory does make some sense I don’t feel it is applicable to every human being. Even though I have experienced both types of pleasures in many instances more times than not I will chose the lesser quality choice or as Nick already puts it “a slice from Pugsley's rather than caviar from a 5 star restaurant in Manhattan.”
Pleasure, for me, is a personal thing and I think it is ludicrous for a philosophical theory to dictate what is right for me to get more satisfaction particularly in cases when I have experienced both sides of the spectrum. If pleasure is personal and society is made up of people then I don’t think Mills theory has any applicability to society. Although his theory encourages people to intellectually stimulate themselves, which always beneficial to the person, sometimes people just need to chill out and maybe watching an episode of Friends rather than going to the opera offers more pleasure for that person.
For Mill’s theory to get more credit I feel it needs to be more practical and maybe in this instance Mill “only know[s] one side of the question”
I do understand what you are saying Jenna when you mention the fact that people our age will most likely not choose the Broadway play over TV. The main reason why we would choose TV over the Broadway is because we have not fully experienced the quality of pleasure, which Broadway shows provide according to Mill. Mill would say that the quality of pleasure we receive from our animalistic pleasures are subservient to our human pleasures. Therefore he would say if someone our age would go and experience the true quality of Broadway shows, they would definitely choose the Broadway show over television. However, the question I would have for Mill is what would he say if “experts” valued TV over Broadway shows, would the Broadway shows become an animalistic pleasure and TV become a quality human pleasure which people gained more true happiness
I completely agree with you being confused about animalistic v. human pleasures. I don't think that any one can determine our pleasures other than ourselves. However, I don understand what Mill is trying to point out to us. Referencing back to the Broadway play and TV, we should chose to watch some sort of show on TV because we don't hold enough intelligence and knowledge on knowing that Broadway play would probably a lot more enjoyable and would provide us with greater pleasures. I think rather than telling people how to live and what should make them feel pleasure, he is challenging us to become as intelligent as possible so that we would be able to enjoy a Broadway play. I also don't think that there should be a universal pleasure for everyone. You should be able to do what pleasures you and not focus on whether one pleasure is better than another.
Not going to lie, at first glance what Mill said kind of pissed me off. But it does make sense. However, the distinction between animal and human pleasure can not be so so broad. Clearly, though, the person who is best to judge is the person who has been on both sides of the fence. However, in my opinion, you can appreciate lets say tv shows and opera. It does sound, though, like we are being told what to feel pleasure to. I don't think we can dimiss "animal" pleasures. I think it is more important for us to recognize the distinction between the two. The real problem comes when we do not have any idea that there is even a difference.
I agree when you said in your example that some people find pleasure in the simpler things such as food or a tv show as opposed to a broadway show or expensive dish. I think the standards for quality are different for each person. Like most who first read what Mill said, I was a little angry. However, I now understand the point he was trying to make. His argument is basically quality versus quantity. To be a disatisfied human or to be a satisfied pig? That example Mill uses helped me to clearly understand his point.
In this case, Mill's animalistic vs. human pleasures is broad and in some parts, not definitive enough for us. But I agree with Nick when he says that it should focus on the animalistic characteristics. From the human standpoint, happiness is a human pleasure that is very difficult to describe, especially when it varies from person to person. I think that even if he were to make his theory more concrete, it would still not satisfy what some or even most of us would be looking for. The "unsatisfied human vs. satisfied pig" really clicked for me, but still left me looking for answers with Mill.
I think that the point Mill is trying to make is that there are those in society who are educated enough in subjects like opera, for example, that they can form the objective claim that it is better than TV. I don’t think he is saying all humans need to think that opera is better than TV to certify the logic of those who hold that opinion. Those in society who are knowledgeable of Opera and hold it to this higher platform will indirectly lead society to understand that, although they may not agree because of lack of education, opera is better than TV. This overall societal effect raises all humans to a logic that differentiates us from “satisfied pigs.”
I agree with Abigail in the sense that Mill isn't saying all humans need to find humanistic pleasures better than animalistic pleasures. As cliche as it may sound, every human has different preferences, and there is no way everybody would prefer one activity (Broadway) over another (TV). Like Jenna originally said in her post, it is about the quality of pleasure. It is indisputable that the quality of a Broadway show is much better than watching a television program, therefore the quality of pleasure received from seeing a Broadway play is greater than that of watching television. As stated in previous comments, the core of Mill's argument is essentially quality vs. quantity. Using the Broadway and TV example, Broadway would be considered "quality" whereas TV would be considered "quantity." I'm sure most humans would attest that quality is more important than quantity, therefore proving Mill's point to still be relevant today.
Jenna, while I understand that you belief in whatever makes you feel happy is all that matters but at the same time I think the pleasure that you listed are simply immediate pleasures which in the end will leave you feeling empty. When Mill compares animalistic pleasure versus humanistic pleasures, he is addressing a ultimate happiness. That being said, I believe the animalistic pleasures are the ones the immediate ones that will not lead to an ultimate and higher happiness. The more humanistic the pleasure the more complete your ultimate happiness will be.
Abigail, I think you probably summed it up the best. I also agree with most of the other comments though, that Mill isn't totally correct on his claim. It is undoubtedly pretentious to assume that a random group of people, all thoroughly educated in opera, having experienced its animalistic and human pleasures would always chose this form of entertainment than watching TV (having also thoroughly experienced this as well). He blatantly fails to address the possibility that "well-developed humans" will not agree on the most satisfying pleasures.
I agree in general with most of the above points on Mill's conception of pleasures, but I think there is another aspect to this argument which has not yet been presented, namely the difficulty of attaining certain pleasures versus others.
For instance, to apply this concept to the common example of attending opera's versus watching television, I would suggest that attaining this so called, "higher" level pleasure(in terms of quality) from Opera requires far more than mere education as to its complex nature, but also the active discernment and analysis of these complexities, e.g.; dialects involved, the motifs of the story, the rhythms and themes of the music--for example, the type of meter used can often describe the class of the characters, etc. In comparison, the "lower" pleasure of TV watching can be more easily attained, having less factors to deal with, etc (unless one watches opera on TV, in which case the individual would have a more difficult time discerning and analyzing the various complexities because they are farther removed--that is, they are at the discretion of the camera-man, etc.).
I agree with Mill on his quote that “it is better to be human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied…” It makes sense in that the nature of humans is to exercise rational thought, whereas, the nature of a “pig” is to satisfy gluttony. To satisfy gluttony is much easier compared to satisfying one’s intellect. I also agree with you on your point that Mill’s theory regarding quality vs. quantity. Opinions differ from person to person, it isn’t always the case that a cultured person would only enjoy things like Opera, i.e. I’m a college student and yet, I still enjoy watching Saturday morning cartoons.
I think it is important to be very careful when interpreting Mill's argument that "it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied." This is a polarizing example; we can neither relate to a pig nor socrates. Rather than understand this argument through the lens of an animal vs. human conflict, it is better to understand it through a rational human vs. more rational human lens. Mill's philosophy aims to be practical; this is why I like the example that Jenna poses (whether or not it is better to watch television than see a play on broadway). This question is not an issue of animal pleasures vs. human pleasures, it is an issue of rational pleasures vs. more rational pleasures. I think that it is very dangerous and overcritical to define a television watcher as "animalistic." I don't think that is what Mill intended to conclude when writing n utilitarian ethics.
While I agree that I thought Mill was a jerk I find myself agreeing with Alex when your points are covering some very dangerous points in his utilitartian ethics. I think he was using some very rash examples to point out how the study of ethics leads to a higher intellectual 'taste' with things considered human pleasures rather than animalistic. Regardless of his examples I do agree that when one does gain a higher intellectual appreciation for the coinciding activities, we find ourselves loving quality over quantity. Granted there are exceptions where I might love to watch television, I will never compare it to a time where I saw an orchestra play for, to me, there are completely unrelated. I like your examples and appreciate your attack of Mill's example but Alex does well to show how it is not animalistic versus human pleasures; it is rational pleasures versus even more rational pleasures.
I agree with what your saying. However, I think Mill holds more value to human pleasures so long as they also contribute to the greater good. Utilitarian happiness seems to always lead to the greater happiness of all. Individual pleasures still have value, but I think Mill would agree that a human pleasure that also contributes to a greater general sense of happiness is much more valuable that an individual pleasure. I can also see how animalistic pleasures could still hold value. If a general populous or a whole town/society enjoys watching TV, then I still think this type of pleasure holds a value because it contributes and demonstrates the greater happiness of all.
We should also note that Mill may not be explicitly defending higher pleasures as more intense or satisfying for the individual, but rather that they are—as mentioned in previous comments—of an altogether different sort (greater intrinsic value). Qualitatively ‘higher’ pleasures:
(1) perfect and fulfill man’s higher faculties (rational capacities, etc.) (9);
(2) aim at promoting nobleness of character and consequently “make other people happier for its nobleness” (11);
(3) surpass mere self-interest and demonstrate interest in the public good (14); and
(4) may not even be necessarily concerned with “the agent’s own greatest happiness,” but rather more about maximizing total/general happiness (11)
If the above points are true then it's not an argument about “Mill thinks watching TV is bad; therefore he is a jerk” but a determination of which pleasures will perfect man the higher creature, encourage noble character, and most of all promote greater general happiness. At the end of the day, if Socrates is dissatisfied, so be it—for he will be at least content with a life that looks outward and adds to the public good.
After all that, though, I’d still probably argue that Seinfeld is better for the public good than Wagner.
Post a Comment