John Stuart Mill's Virtue: Mill Vs. Aristotle

Virtue: Mill vs Aristotle John Stuart Mill and Aristotle agree men ultimately desire happiness. However, they disagree on what happiness is, and what the virtues and goods which result in happiness are. Mill argues utilitarianism, claiming that each good, or source of pleasure, is desired in and of itself, and all of these goods build up happiness. whereas Aristotle claims that all goods are aimed towards an end, which is happiness. Although Mill has the appeal of pleasure, Aristotle was ahead of the game, and he has a thoroughly formed case for happiness as the highest end which goes deeper than Mill’s views, making his classic form of ethics one worth keeping around. John Stuart Mill, although later in time, makes a good starting point for this …show more content…
This is because Mill has a more simple view of ethics, which is that all goods, and particularly the good of virtue, should be desired for themselves, and not seen as a means to anything but merely as a source of pleasure. Thus, the more sources of pleasure, goods and virtues, the happier you are. This is a very straightforward and almost shallow idea. Essentially Mill is saying that goods and virtues provide pleasure, and that pleasure equates to happiness. There is nothing more to it. Aristotle’s view is quite different, he does agree that goods and virtues are sources of pleasure, and in fact says that the difference between pleasure and pain is an indicator for whether something is good. However, Aristotle has already established that there is an end to which the goods and virtues are aimed, and that it takes a lifetime of increasing goods and virtues to come closer and closer to