Compare And Contrast Mill And Epictetus

Decent Essays
Both philosophers’ views on the wise man’s relationship with others are similar in that the one achieves maximum pleasure and minimum pain, and that some sort of training or education enables the wise men to attain pleasure and happiness. Epictetus believed that a wise men should practice knowledge and incorporate it into one’s judgment. This is observed when he said, “Exercise, therefore, what is in your control” (Marino, 2010, p. 92). Similarly, Mill noted that through education, happiness can be attained for oneself and even for society. The philosophers, however, differ in what constitute happiness and the attainment of happiness. Happiness to Epictetus is freedom, and his form of happiness is more self-serving than Mill. Happiness to Mill is the total amount of happiness, which promotes happiness benefiting society.
Epictetus’ philosophy of happiness is acquired by recognizing that some things are in our control and others are not. The things that are within our control are anything that is our own actions and the things that are outside of our control are anything that is not our own actions. One does not only acquire knowledge, but also practice into
…show more content…
He argues that a person who performs a pleasure that benefits the society increases the total happiness of the people. Epictetus, on the other hand, is concerned with self and what one can control or should react to. Mill would argue that Epictetus’ form of happiness is not achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. He would argue that Epictetus’ happiness does not exhibit advancement in society. Sacrificing one’s happiness for the happiness of others is better than having happiness for oneself. Epictetus would argue that happiness is what one can control, one cannot control what would make others happy. The best way for others to be happy is to react only to things related to

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    And those who have become virtuous are virtuous by renouncing happiness. But if a virtuous person is considered virtuous by standards set by themselves because they are happy, are they actually considered virtuous by outside parties? Mill would reply that it is an exaggeration to say that people cannot be happy. Mill proposes happiness is possible for almost everybody if educational and social arrangements were different and happiness is defined as moments of bliss that occur in a life of few pains. He notes that the main derivative of unhappiness stems from selfishness and lack of mental cultivation.…

    • 1855 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    If the ultimate goal is to maximize one’s well-being, then it would seem that acting unjustly would be reasonable. Contrastingly, if an action improves another’s well-being, if it is morally good, then it would be considered just. It is debatable whether or not one can commit an act of justice, and, in doing so, maximize one’s own happiness. Many would claim that just acts are solely for the sake of others and always at the expense of one’s own self-interest. However, I would argue that committing just acts can inadvertently lead to an increase in happiness for some people.…

    • 1130 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In the event that the ethics were just a significance to happiness, then they may neglect to cause happiness in different conditions, and one may have the capacity to accomplish happiness with essentially the presence of morality. Be that as it may, if morality is the preeminent constituent of happiness, then one couldn 't be happy without being righteous, and one couldn 't be righteous without being happy.…

    • 1066 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    He believed in two different states that each person has; the Good and the End (“Moral Philosophy”). When describing the Good, Socrates explains that people unconsciously do things that make them happy and that physical objects make one feel satisfied at the same time (“Moral Philosophy”). The whole idea of the Good is that humans act in a positive way and that they just want to live a happy and meaningful life (Moral Philosophy”). Happiness is the one thing all humans want to have in their lives and the Good is that explanation. The End is the other idea Socrates had and goes along with the Good.…

    • 1365 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    One; that the only way to prove something is desirable is that a person may actually desire it, two, essentially individuals tend to desire their own happiness, and three, being happy is good. When an individual is happy it is linked to being good, good to the collective…

    • 817 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    He suggests these people are more qualified to judge a pleasure’s overall quality rather than someone who has only experienced the low pleasures in life. Mill declares these people, who are more familiar with those higher pleasures, then undoubtedly have an increased value for high intellect, feelings, imagination, and moral sentiments that are included with the higher pleasures. Mill states, the remarkably lower pleasures only take into account the pure physicality of the pleasure taken part in, unlike higher pleasures. Therefore, higher pleasures are far more superior in quality and naturally more desirable to…

    • 769 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Theories Of Altruism

    • 1271 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Normative meaning establishing a standard, especially concerning behavior. Egoism is not the standard, but it does offer a theory of how people should behave. An egoist would state that something is good when he possesses it, but that would imply that goodness would be circumstantial, not universal. Egoism is qualified with phrases such as ethical or psychological. According to Machan, “the human self or ego consists of a bundle of desires (or drives or wishes or preferences) and to benefit oneself amounts to satisfying these desires in their order of priority, which is itself something entirely dependent upon the individual or, as it is often put, a subjective matter” (Machan 18) implying that it is understood that each individual desire is subjective to the person, but states that satisfying these desires benefits the person.…

    • 1271 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The paradox of hedonism states that to maximize happiness, sometimes is seems that a hedonist, should not be a hedonist. This is because if someone’s ultimate goal is to maximize happiness, they may look around and notice that people who are not following a strictly consequentialist lifestyle are in fact, happier than they are. They notice that others are engaging in relationships and commitments that create happiness. Railton provides a solution to the paradox of hedonism by once again differentiating between subjective and objective forms. Subjective hedonism always attempts to choose what will bring the most aggregate happiness about.…

    • 972 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The assumption is that if we follow a set of rules that give us the best consequences our actions will result in the greater good for everyone around us. Some strengths of utilitarianism include the importance of happiness, consideration of the greater good, and relevance of intention. Meanwhile, Some disadvantages of utilitarianism are that it is not the only thing of value and the end doesn't justify the means. Mill and Kant have opposite views points, Kant thinks people can decide what is moral through reason alone and Mill thinks that through experience people can determine what is good or evil based on pleasure and…

    • 901 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    However, it is possible to reconcile them in some sense. In my opinion, Aristotle’s idea that happiness depends on the character but also that happiness is objective not subjective, is one of the complementary elements of Parfit’s theory of objective list. Parfit’s theory ignores the agent’s character and his or her will by claiming that objective goods can benefit people independently of their attitudes toward them. Since having the goods in the list without awareness does not provide the best life to that person, character should be counted as an important element of the best life. Also, in the list of goods there are some goods about the character and these goods are not contingent, they should be gained by the agent.…

    • 715 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays