“In the comparatively early state of human advancement in which we now live, a person cannot, indeed, feel that entireness of sympathy with all others which would make any real discordance in the general direction of their conduct in life impossible, but already a person in whom the social feeling is at all developed cannot bring himself to think of the rest of his fellow creatures as struggling rivals with him for the means of happiness, whom he must desire to see defeated in their object in order that he may succeed in his” (Mill, 121).
This passage focuses on the idea some people are able to consider others with sympathy, while others consider people as rivals who they must defeat in order to be happy or successful. This is a cynical way to view the world, because it makes it socially acceptable to hurt others on their path to their own happiness. It should not be impossible for people to consider the needs of others in order to be satisfied with their own happiness. There are plenty of people in the world who are happier when they take the time and energy to help others.
It is not unnatural for people to view others as rivals, especially when related to coworkers or buisnesses in natural or personal competition. Competition is a healthy part of society, but is only happy when the competitive parties are willing to agree upon ethical behavior. The issue with ethics is the reality, if an act or behavior is not against the law, there are no punishments associated with the breach to ethics or what is considered ethical behavior.
This passage also focuses on the idea the world is not fair. The point is, the world may not be fair, but it may be a much better place if people were forced to do what is right, not consider unethical behavior as a moral gray area. When it comes to happiness, there is a complete agreement some behavior will seem right to one person, while it hurts others. If the manner in which people are harmed, breaks a moral ethical code, there should be repercussions to make it easier for people to make the right decision.
“The ingredients of happiness are very various; and each of them is desirable in itself, and not merely when considered as swelling aggregate” (Mill, 123).
This passage makes a point each person’s idea of happiness varies. These difference are most associated with the socioeconomic status of an individual and their family. The socioeconomic status of an individual or a family is a consideration of education, income, occupation, and location of residence. An individual with a low socioeconomic status would have lower expectations in life, which would allow for the appreciation of the “small things” in life, which could include having a roof over their head, food in their bellies, and clothes on their back.
At the same time, an individual with a higher socioeconomic status would have higher expectations as to the home they live in, cars they drive, and clothing they wear. This is where the idea of desire comes from, because some people have the ability to have the things they want, while others are barely able to have the things they need. The value and importance of happiness allows people the opportunity to measure their life’s success.
In conclusion, it is even mentioned in the United States Constitution each person has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What is interesting, is happiness is not implied like the other rights, it only states people have the right to pursue their happiness. This is where the argument of people doing whatever is necessary to achieve their happiness as an acceptable cause for unethical behavior, this is why these actions are still socially acceptable, especially when related to gaining money. At the same time, there needs to be a measurement for the means used to achieve happiness. The idea is to change the value from greed, to the overall success of the masses.
References
Mill, J. Utilitarianism.
