John Stuart Mill The Pursuit Of Happiness Analysis

1512 Words 7 Pages
Mill’s theory talks about utilitarianism which talks about the action that people take should be in accord to promote overall human happiness. Happiness to Mill is pleasure and no amount of pain which is also considered the highest good. Which in turn defines good as the same thing as pleasures without pain. Utilitarian’s says we should consider everyone’s pleasure and not just our own. Although, there are different types of pleasure which he refers to as higher and lower pleasures. The higher pleasures are more intellectual while the lower pleasures are only sensual. Mill argues that once a human being knows of their higher facilities they will not wat to go back to the lower pleasures. He gives an example “no intelligent human being would …show more content…
If a group of sadists were to go around and inflict pain on one person at a time and no one were to ever find out about what they were doing, it would be seen as ethical because it maximizes the majority happiness. The don’t take into account if something is ethically good or ethically bad. For instance, if there was a person helping a person build a house, that would be considered ethically good. As for the group of sadists we would say that it is ethically bad. Some utilitarianism will say that it is very unlikely that no one ever find out. When they do find out many people will be unhappy, and we have to produce the greatest amount of happiness, so they shouldn’t inflict pain on the person. However, the situation was if no one were to ever find out then it would be considered ethical. The problem should not be considered bad only if people found out, the action all together is wrong. This situation points out that the maximum happiness is not always the most ethical way to make the decision. There has to be some other guidelines used to see which decision will bring about what is morally …show more content…
The answer is no because they only way he would die for the them is if it would bring him happiness. Even still he would have to act out of selflessness which would be an excess amount of self. Aristotle believes in doing what is morally right for the person and cares about the individual rights. Killing a healthy person to save others would not be what brings about happiness. Killing someone would not be the supreme good because it doesn’t act from a morally good standpoint in this theory. Killing someone should not be considered ethical even if they could save lives because your taking away their right to

Related Documents