Many believe that happiness is a key piece for living a good life. According to the Value Theory there are two general kinds of values; instrumental value or intrinsic value. In John Mill’s argument, he argues that things having intrinsic value should be what we pursue in life to live a good one. In particular Mill’s term happiness as being the only intrinsically value. Mill’s defines happiness being intrinsically valuable, because it is valuable within itself and not for its use; which matches the definition for something to hold intrinsic value. I will outline Mill’s argument of the Greatest-happiness Principle, and how he tries to dinguses himself from traditional Hedonism views, and raise the question if virtue for its own sake, produces
…show more content…
Here in Mill’s initial claim he is stating that happiness is the only thing that is intrinsically good, as he states “that pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends;” (EL, 18) a claim that can be viewed as a support to Hedonism. However, Mill’s was strongly against how Epicurus defined his claim of happiness. Epicurus believed “that sex and money are key ingredients in a good life,” (FE,25). Mill’s did not agree with this claim, because he saw this claim as making us act as animals, pigs to be exacted. Mill’s often referred to as a “doctrine of the swine,” (FE,26). These actions of sex, money, or even taking a nice cold dip in a pool on a hot summer day; although would make me feel happy, meet the standard for my physical pleasures, because they make me happy. For at least the moment in which I’m fulfilling these actions, “but such feelings are not the same thing of happiness,” (FE, 24). Instead Mill believed that my pleasures that I endure in life should be attitudinal pleasures, which is “the positive attitude of positive enjoyment,” (FE,24). Mill’s believes that there are two kinds of pleasures that one can …show more content…
I believe that virtue for its own sake produces the same kind of pleasure that Mill outlined in his Greatest-happiness Principle. Naturally we as humans want to vitreous beings. In Mill’s utilitarian doctrine it is said that virtue is said to be “not only that virtue is to be desired, but that it is to be desired disinterestedly, for itself, (EL, 22). To be virtue for within itself means that I am a person that has high moral admirable character, and lives a happy life that is balanced between making choices in my life that are extremely impulsive, or that is extremely gutless. For example, me going over 100 mph on a busy freeway just to demonstrate that I’m a dare devil would be a completely impulsive action to do. On the other side I would not just want to sit there and stay quite if I knew someone had stolen my friends phone and did nothing about. Although it may not be the same as Mill’s argument of having the balance of having happiness and unhappiness, virtue “may be felt a good in itself” (EL, 24), it still meets the standards of being an attitudinal pleasure. Attitudinal pleasure defined as enjoyment, and to be a virtuous person would bring out this enjoyment. In Mill’s argument he states “the ingredients of happiness are very various, and each of them is desirable in itself,” (EL,26). This statement contradicts is original claim that
Here in Mill’s initial claim he is stating that happiness is the only thing that is intrinsically good, as he states “that pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends;” (EL, 18) a claim that can be viewed as a support to Hedonism. However, Mill’s was strongly against how Epicurus defined his claim of happiness. Epicurus believed “that sex and money are key ingredients in a good life,” (FE,25). Mill’s did not agree with this claim, because he saw this claim as making us act as animals, pigs to be exacted. Mill’s often referred to as a “doctrine of the swine,” (FE,26). These actions of sex, money, or even taking a nice cold dip in a pool on a hot summer day; although would make me feel happy, meet the standard for my physical pleasures, because they make me happy. For at least the moment in which I’m fulfilling these actions, “but such feelings are not the same thing of happiness,” (FE, 24). Instead Mill believed that my pleasures that I endure in life should be attitudinal pleasures, which is “the positive attitude of positive enjoyment,” (FE,24). Mill’s believes that there are two kinds of pleasures that one can …show more content…
I believe that virtue for its own sake produces the same kind of pleasure that Mill outlined in his Greatest-happiness Principle. Naturally we as humans want to vitreous beings. In Mill’s utilitarian doctrine it is said that virtue is said to be “not only that virtue is to be desired, but that it is to be desired disinterestedly, for itself, (EL, 22). To be virtue for within itself means that I am a person that has high moral admirable character, and lives a happy life that is balanced between making choices in my life that are extremely impulsive, or that is extremely gutless. For example, me going over 100 mph on a busy freeway just to demonstrate that I’m a dare devil would be a completely impulsive action to do. On the other side I would not just want to sit there and stay quite if I knew someone had stolen my friends phone and did nothing about. Although it may not be the same as Mill’s argument of having the balance of having happiness and unhappiness, virtue “may be felt a good in itself” (EL, 24), it still meets the standards of being an attitudinal pleasure. Attitudinal pleasure defined as enjoyment, and to be a virtuous person would bring out this enjoyment. In Mill’s argument he states “the ingredients of happiness are very various, and each of them is desirable in itself,” (EL,26). This statement contradicts is original claim that