One of the misconceptions J. S. Mill says that critics have about Utilitarianism is that it is base and demeaning to humans to reduce the purpose of humanity to pleasure. Does that sound familiar? I believe Aristotle would agree with that critique. I remember that in our discussion of Aristotle he states that the only intrinsic good should capture what is distinctive about human beings, and thus cannot be pleasure because we share that with animals. After a list of other instrumental things it could not be, he comes to the conclusion that our telos is happiness because it is pursued for its own sake.
Utilitarianism also has something to say about happiness, J.S Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle states that “acts are morally good in as much as they produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people”. Now, Utilitarianism is a form of Hedonism and to Hedonists much of happiness is focused net pleasure, so you could see why the aforementioned critique is valid. But if you are a Utilitarian don’t worry Mill has an answer to the naysayers! He says that there are two kinds of pleasures: higher pleasures, which are distinctly human, and lower pleasures which are shared with the animals. What a revelation!
He goes on to say that we as humans would always take more of a higher pleasure even if it came with some discomfort as opposed to a lower pleasure. For example, having a meaningful conversation during your lunch break with a friend in need that prevents you from going to get a decent meal. Mill would say that we value the higher pleasure of communication more than the lower pleasure of satisfying hunger. Engaging in higher pleasures such as music, communication and education feeds our happiness in a way that animals do not experience. This distinction of pleasures allows Mill to shut down the misconception of pleasure as demeaning/animalistic in a way that other Philosophers we have studied so far could not...*cough* Lucretius *cough*..
No comments:
Post a Comment