Over the past week, we have discussed the opinions, thoughts and beliefs of Mill and Kant. I can see where both philosophers are coming from. In particular, John Stuart Mill believes that utility or happiness is most useful. Utility is defined as pleasure itself, and the absence of pain, also known as the Greatest Happiness Principle. Mill has 10 misunderstandings that are addressed and he gives his point of view on each of them. Towards the end of the misunderstandings, the claim is made the utilitarianism is a goodness doctrine because its moral foundation is human happiness and not the will of God. His rebuttal is that it depends the character of God. He says God wants his creations to be happy. It's meant for us to be happy. Which brings me to my next point. What is the definition of happiness? Happiness is indeed a pleasure. The quality of pleasure and satisfaction. There are some people in the world who live a "happy life" but are doing things that are normally not happy or pleasurable. For example people who find happiness in seeing other people suffer. In reality most people would say that these types of people are miserable and aren't happy. With that being said, how can one define the true definition of happiness when someone's motives and intentions are the opposites of what they should be? What do you think Mill's rebuttal would be?
JN
No comments:
Post a Comment