Is Happiness The Standard Of Value?
The Kant and Mill debate regarding happiness being the standard of value, is very interesting. Kant deontological ethics focus not on the consequences of actions, but on the actions themselves. This is a little bit radical because it does not apply to every single situation. Sometimes you have to take action in order to find out the consequences of that action, otherwise you will never be able to explore new things if the action is never permissible. Some Kantian features of universal, the rules apply to everyone, as well as impartial, where no person is favored over others, are both very easy to agree with. However, other Kantian features are just as easy to disagree with. For instance, unexceptionable, …show more content…
It even stems to rules created in the 1960s that seemed right at the time, may not apply to today's society. The last disagreeable feature of Kantian features surrounds unconditional, doing one's duty because one has to. A policeman has to perform his duty unconditionally when someone breaks the law and do this without exercising moral values. If this were the case, most of society would be in jail. For example, a policeman's duty is to arrest a woman caught stealing at a grocery store. But when he finds out why she was stealing (kids starving at home and recently lost her job due to health issues stemming from a car accident), he decides to put aside his duty for a moment and help her get back on her feet in hope that she does not have to be in these circumstances again. Applying the policeman's moral values instead of being unconditional to duty, may have helped society by awakening them to help their fellow societal member to succeed in life. By utilizing peer pressure and setting a positive example, the people that need assistance in understanding that they are not doing the right thing can get back on the path of righteousness. Therefore, sometimes the …show more content…
In Mill's opinion there are certain rules that can maximize happiness. To do this society needs to examine each act itself to determine the favorable consequences. Identifying what is intrinsically good and bad, determines the options to take and the results of these options, allowing one to know the best option to take in order to maintain balance and happiness. This is why Utilitarians stand firm to the belief that happiness is the standard of value, because being a moral person means trying to do the best you can to make people happy. The flaw with this idea is that not everyone will be happy nor agree with the decision one derived to in order to benefit the majority of society. This goes against the principle that the standard value is happiness, because one would never be able to please everyone. For example, offering free beer to everyone. Not all people drink beer, and those people would not be happy, and thus unhappiness would break the standard value. Another argument Mill makes is that happiness is the only goal worth pursuing. The idea of striving to make people happy and for self to be happy, is a really good goal to have. However, happiness is relative, because what makes one happy doesn't apply to everybody. If it would we would have the perfect world. Even Formalist disagree that happiness is only goal worth pursuing because being a moral person means obeying certain principles, no matter
The Kant and Mill debate regarding happiness being the standard of value, is very interesting. Kant deontological ethics focus not on the consequences of actions, but on the actions themselves. This is a little bit radical because it does not apply to every single situation. Sometimes you have to take action in order to find out the consequences of that action, otherwise you will never be able to explore new things if the action is never permissible. Some Kantian features of universal, the rules apply to everyone, as well as impartial, where no person is favored over others, are both very easy to agree with. However, other Kantian features are just as easy to disagree with. For instance, unexceptionable, …show more content…
It even stems to rules created in the 1960s that seemed right at the time, may not apply to today's society. The last disagreeable feature of Kantian features surrounds unconditional, doing one's duty because one has to. A policeman has to perform his duty unconditionally when someone breaks the law and do this without exercising moral values. If this were the case, most of society would be in jail. For example, a policeman's duty is to arrest a woman caught stealing at a grocery store. But when he finds out why she was stealing (kids starving at home and recently lost her job due to health issues stemming from a car accident), he decides to put aside his duty for a moment and help her get back on her feet in hope that she does not have to be in these circumstances again. Applying the policeman's moral values instead of being unconditional to duty, may have helped society by awakening them to help their fellow societal member to succeed in life. By utilizing peer pressure and setting a positive example, the people that need assistance in understanding that they are not doing the right thing can get back on the path of righteousness. Therefore, sometimes the …show more content…
In Mill's opinion there are certain rules that can maximize happiness. To do this society needs to examine each act itself to determine the favorable consequences. Identifying what is intrinsically good and bad, determines the options to take and the results of these options, allowing one to know the best option to take in order to maintain balance and happiness. This is why Utilitarians stand firm to the belief that happiness is the standard of value, because being a moral person means trying to do the best you can to make people happy. The flaw with this idea is that not everyone will be happy nor agree with the decision one derived to in order to benefit the majority of society. This goes against the principle that the standard value is happiness, because one would never be able to please everyone. For example, offering free beer to everyone. Not all people drink beer, and those people would not be happy, and thus unhappiness would break the standard value. Another argument Mill makes is that happiness is the only goal worth pursuing. The idea of striving to make people happy and for self to be happy, is a really good goal to have. However, happiness is relative, because what makes one happy doesn't apply to everybody. If it would we would have the perfect world. Even Formalist disagree that happiness is only goal worth pursuing because being a moral person means obeying certain principles, no matter