According to Mills, the happiness achieved by a person varies and can be classified into two; lower ranked pleasure and a higher ranked pleasure. In differential capacity, using the "Utilitarianism” moral theory, higher pleasures are intellectually defined while the lower ranked pleasures can be assumed to be the sensual ones. According to his ethical description in the utilitarianism, those acts which maximizes pleasure are more suited for human acceptance than those which do not. Common things like food, sleep, sex, beverages and talking are less likely to increase pleasure compared to intellectual like reading and good novel, brainstorming to solve problems and watching an amazing TV series. .But Mill comes along and responds that you should instead there are higher pleasures. According to John Stuart Mill, an individual’s moral choice should mainly depend on the amount of pleasure or happiness one derives from acting in a particular direction. Even when John tries as much as possible to distinguish between what can ignite maximum happiness or what cannot, there are numerous classes of criticism towards the theory and more particularly in relation to utilitarianism interpretation he provides. Several people cites lack of criteria of discerning what happiness is and any streamline method of achieving that which may be considered as happiness. However, he stipulates that it is not only the quantity of happiness that matters, but also the type of pleasure and the level. On that regard, this memoir is drafted in the view to support the argument that no one would ever accept replacing a higher order of happiness with a merely lesser one. The critics toward Mill’s stand are evaluated and a suitable counter argument provided.
Mill’s argument is that, in creating pleasure, all the elements that cause pain are assumed to have negative implication and as such, they are not right. In the book ‘Utilitarianism’ he explains many reasons as to why the argument is justified. He argues that, human beings’ existence is founded on a living that creates an atmosphere that achieves maximum joy and on different grounds from the natural setting (LLC, p.1). When a person commits an act that does not fulfil the joy of others, then their happiness is highly altered and the action can only be considered incorrect. To understand what he espouses, one fundamental point of reference is the utilitarianism theory its general definition. In his explanation, the utilitarianism formative theory description implies achieving pleasure and elimination of painfulness. Since the theory is constructed in a manner that quest for happiness, all the aspects that contribute to painful results are against the optimum pleasure of the people. In literal understanding, the acts which attributes more happiness among people is considered highly objective. The achievement of happiness by majority could be considered as attainment of high level of pleasure and therefore the ethics are followed. For instance if a person is reading a book, then the spouse approaches asking for sex, it will replace the mental satisfaction with physical which is short-lived (profile, p.1). Critics argue that it is logical to put the book aside and please the desires of the partner. However, when providing Mill’s judgment, it could be seen that the curiosity for further reading will not disappear and upon completing having physical pleasure, the desire to continue with knowledge acquisition shall persist. Furthermore, having physical pleasure should be decided and not induced. By induction, it eliminates mutual happiness.
In principality, Mill expression of happiness is founded on achievement of what only men can. In light to joy of many, the universalization of the ideology is analogous to curiosity to gain knowledge globally (Kemerling, p.1). He goes further to define ‘right’ as a societal element that every human should defend as once personal freedom and right are highly regarded, it have impact on general esteem of an individual and sometimes personal satisfaction have related inner energy invigoration which could be the ultimate capacity of joy. Since naturally human rights safeguards the society, when all the people have their will respected and what they deserve accorded, the pleasure that accompanies such a situation is an overall demonstration of pleasure. Such rights that provides. The provision of rights could be utilized as negotiation ground to distinguish animals from human beings. Proper healthcare, addressing the mass and good education are examples of high pleasure (President and Harvard, p.1). Using Mill’s argument grounds, it is not possible to cut a speaker short in order for him/her to take a meal at the midst of a speech. Critics argues that, human rights are fundamental for human existence and may not imply summative joy as it is an expect element. However, the counter-argument here is that even when it is deserved, the pain that comes upon violation is unacceptable and could lead to suffering which cannot be compared to any physical pain. When a person is experiencing physical pain, it is his minds that Suffers more tormenting than the body. Furthermore, observance of rights entails achievement of justice which is as a result of intellectuality rather than physicality. Using mental judgment can be argued to be naturally wiser than using physical force to achieve this justice. In fact, human being achieves more satisfaction through mind rather than physicality – what animals also does (“20th WCP: John Stuart Mill and the Ends of Sport”, p.1).
Mill definition of higher pleasure regards human being to be more superior to the animals (“20th WCP: John Stuart Mill and the Ends of Sport”, p.1). Things that account for lower satisfaction are those shared by both man and animals including but not limited to; eating and sleeping. On the other hand, there exists high pleasure giving actions which is integral in defining human capacity of thinking and are called intellectual pleasures. As an example, Mill questions the prospects of a man accepting to be a pig that is fully satisfied instead of being a human being who is not fully satisfied. For obvious reasons, Mill considers a human with less pleasure better than a happy pig. Having that knowledge, it colligates that, higher pleasures are those people strain to achieve. Since a pig has no struggles, then a human being equated to a pig could be considered animalistic. It is worth noting that, hunger satisfaction is much less than intellectual pleasure. Those who would accept assuming animal nature are less likely to be better humans and their acts will more likely lead to immorality. A person who is satisfied with just eating and sleeping is more likely to be a thief or idle. Although critics argue that human beings still struggle feed and acquire shelter, Mill could justify his claim by citing the pleasure that comes with knowhow as mind satisfying.
Human being are always in a race to achieve success. Mill talks of what people desires and compares it to the visible perspective of elements. He stipulates that, the theory must be related to practicality. That is imperative that, sometimes what ought to be desired might not be what people desires. Therefore, to determine the desired outcomes, an individual should contemplate on what brings majority to the comfort. For instance, if a people desires the wrong things, then their happiness is fulfilled in that direction and hence or otherwise that becomes the right thing to do. Sometimes a person may be stuck between eating and watching a movie. Even when eating is a necessity, it is the upper status of pleasure that is attributable to movie watching that can be regarded more powerful. Some students likewise, feels happier when playing during bed time instead of sleeping. Critics argues that the general feeling of satisfaction that results from higher pleasure roles could sometimes be dangerous and lead to suffering like failing to sleep properly. However, the positive argument is that the ultimate goal of living is acquisition of happiness and it would not be possible to achieve happiness using logic to support. It is hence what is seen in the people’s action that defines what they desires. What ought to be desired fails to bring joy and hence since what is desired contributes much happiness it becomes ethical to work in that direction. It then becomes impossible to replace the high form of happiness with a low kind.
According to John Stuart Mill, human beings regard material success as a source of pleasure that is incomparable to any other. It is the associated will to toil and achieve more that generates more pleasure. Since this excelling exceeds the necessary requirements, it creates higher happiness and cannot be assumed. As per his definition, higher pleasure elements are those that human beings cannot share with other creatures. Highly valuable positions and objects require higher level of mind involvement, and hence intellectuality plays a huge role. Critics argue that even the wealthy cannot gain full pleasure and are bond to stressful moments too. There are also criticisms regarding methods used by different individuals to gain success. Arguably, the opposition further states that those who gained their property using easy means may not realize the associated pleasure. However, referring to the animalistic comparison, it is Mills argues that, it is better to achieve lower levels of higher satisfaction than higher levels of small satisfaction. The desire to succeed is what makes a person more human and could be associated with brain working and hence ultimate joy. Concerning material gains, Mill purpose that being wealthy eliminates the suffering associated with poverty and implies evasion of the pain.
Mill suggested that, human beings feel more happy when praised for their worth and as having bright minds. Great people have what common people lacks and the differentiation factor acts to distinguish between human beings and animals. Such things as, leadership, intellectuality, having higher QI and being best in competitions provides a sense of nobility. The ego and satisfaction associated with these activities and phenomenon is incomparable to normalcy (low pleasure items). Items that leads to elevation of higher human faculty satisfaction hence are better positioned and would not accept such joy being replaced by any physical pleasure.
In conclusion, John Mill provided a clear distinction between higher pleasure and lower pleasure. Actions which involve intellectual pleasure are considered satisfactory and superior to physical pleasures. The essay provides the grounds under which John Mill’s assumption is justified using examples like having sex instead of reading, watching a movie instead of eating and more so, a comparison between a satisfactory animal’s life and an intellectual human existences given. With many criticisms towards the theory, it is evident that there are loopholes that requires stronger arguments to justify. For instance, there is no particular method of measuring satisfaction and as such establishing what is primary and what is secondary might face challenges. Nevertheless, human intelligence as the primary tool of differentiating humans from animal is a potent tool for judging the satisfaction acquired by pursuing different options and John Stuart Mill manages to use his theory to provide levels of happiness and how well their usage can be used to discern morally upright doings from the immoral acts.
Work-cited
“20th WCP: John Stuart Mill and the ends of sport.” n.d. Web. 30 Apr. 2016.
President, The, and Fellows of Harvard. J.S. Mill, Utilitarianism (1863). 2011. Web. 30 Apr. 2016.
profile, View my complete. Links to other stuff of mine. 2008. Web. 30 Apr. 2016.
Kemerling, Garth. Bentham/mill. 1997. Web. 30 Apr. 2016.
LLC, SparkNotes. Utilitarianism. 2016. Web. 30 Apr. 2016.
