![]() He would have been better off, avoiding these problems, if he had abandoned the Benthamite narrow, hedonistic view of happiness, given up talk of higher and lower pleasures altogether, and instead framed utility (maximizing the good) in terms of welfare, benefit, satisfaction or preferences, as later Consequentialists have done. In addition to the higher/ lower distinction, Mill extended the notion of pleasure beyond sensation or feeling of wellbeing to something more like Aristotle’s eudaimonia (flourishing, living and doing well). But no detail is given as to this social survey, and again, I suspect he just echoes the view of his friends and himself. I wonder what he’d make of today’s popular pleasures, like shopping, cooking, playing darts or poker, bungee jumping, jogging, watching people bake, dance or play football on TV.Īs to how he knows the status of a pleasure, he says that those who have experienced both higher and lower pleasures prefer the higher, even in small amount, to the lower, even in large amount. He’s not very specific about the higher pleasures, and one gets the feeling these are just the pursuits he and his friends liked. Well, the higher ones are distinctly human, whereas we share the lower ones with some other animals. ![]() So, what are the higher pleasures, and how do know that they are ? Importantly, a small amount of a higher one was worth more than any amount of a lower one, thereby avoiding the eternal oyster and myriad contented pigs problems. To avoid these consequences, Mill said there were higher and lower pleasures. So we have two instances in which, following the tenets of universal prescriptivism, the principle of utility and ethical maxims have been employed together to arrive at conclusions in accord with commonsense morality. Indeed, in Utilitarianism (Ch.2) Mill refers to critics who say it is a “doctrine worthy only of swine”. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure (Mill, 7). One standard example is Haydn and the oyster: if an oyster were to enjoy a tiny bit of pleasure for millions of years, this would outweigh the pleasure in Haydn’s 77-year life, and we would have to say that the oyster’s life was more worthwhile than that of the great composer. But if pleasures can all be measured on a single scale (intensity multiplied by duration), we get unwelcome consequences. The latter thought all pleasures could be rated on a single scale and that “pushpin is as good as poetry” (pushpin was a simple pub game). In this he followed the example of his father’s friend Bentham. Mill frames utility in terms of pleasure (the best action to take is the one maximizing overall pleasure). Why does Mill introduce the idea of higher and lower pleasures, and how does he distinguish between them ? And, since a small amount of a higher pleasure is worth any amount of a lower one, even if Socrates is not fully satisfied enjoying the higher pleasures, he is better off than the fool who is completely satisfied with the lower ones. The reason he gives is that a wise man can experience the “higher” pleasures, whereas the fool experiences only the “lower” ones. What reasons does he give for thinking this? Mill states that it is “better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied”.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |