Mill (1806-1873)

JOHN STUART MILL

Higher and lower kinds of happiness
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was a British philosopher who was very influential in the fields of Ethics, Political Philosophy, and Social Theory. He was also a parliament member, and an advocate of political freedom, women’s right to vote, and liberal social reforms.

The following text is adopted from Mill’s important book Utilitarianism. In this book he presents his theory that an action is morally right if it gives the greatest happiness possible to as many people as possible. For this reason Mill discusses here the nature of happiness, arguing that some kinds of happiness are higher than others.

The view which accepts the Greatest Happiness Principle as the foundation of morality holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness. And they are wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By “happiness” is meant pleasure, and the absence of pain. By “unhappiness” is meant pain, and the absence of pleasure […] Pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things that are desirable as ends. And all desirable things are desirable either because of the pleasure that is found in them, or because they are means to promote pleasure and prevent pain.

Now, such a theory of life is disliked by many minds. The doctrine that life has (as they express it) no higher goal than pleasure is worthy only of pigs, to whom the followers of Epicurus were compared with contempt […]

When attacked this way, the Epicureans have always answered that it is not they, but their accusers who represent human nature in a degrading light.[…] The comparison of the Epicurean life to the life of beasts is felt to be degrading precisely because the pleasures of a beast do not satisfy a human being's conceptions of happiness. Human beings have faculties that are higher than animal appetites, and once they are conscious of these faculties, they do not regard anything as happiness unless it includes their gratification. […] But there is no known Epicurean theory of life which does not regard the pleasures of the intellect, the feelings and imagination, and the moral sentiments, as having a much higher value than the value of mere sensation.

[…]

If I am asked what I mean by pleasures that are different in quality, or what makes one pleasure more valuable than another, there is only one possible answer. Of two pleasures, if one of them is preferred by almost everybody who has experienced both, then this pleasure is more desirable.
[…]
Now, it is unquestionable that those who are acquainted with both pleasures, and who are capable of appreciating and enjoying both, would clearly prefer to live a life which employs the higher faculties. Few human creatures would agree to be changed into a lower animal for a promise of the fullest degree of a beast's pleasures. No intelligent human being would agree to be a fool, no educated person would agree to be an ignoramus, no person of feeling and conscience would be selfish and base, even if they are persuaded that the fool, the unintelligent, or the rascal is more satisfied with his life than they are with their own lives.
[…]
It is better to be a dissatisfied human being than a satisfied pig; better to be a dissatisfied Socrates than a satisfied fool. And if the fool, or the pig, have a different opinion, this is because they only know their own side of the question. The others know both sides.

HappinessSmoking

John Stuart Mill – The birth of a theory about happiness

MillSunlight

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was an important British philosopher who has been especially influential in the fields of Ethics, Political Philosophy, and Social Theory. He was also a parliament member, and an advocate of political freedom, women’s right to vote, and liberal social reforms. A central idea in his ethical and political philosophy is the value of happiness. Happiness is the main criterion for ethical and political rightness.

The following passage is taken from the section “Crisis in my mental history” from Mill’s Autobiography. Mill describes here how, at the age of 20, he fell into a long depression. What pulled him out of this depression was an autobiography by the French writer Marmontel. This experience changed Mill’s philosophy of happiness. He now understood that in order to be happy you should not think much about your happiness but have a goal in life, and you should cultivate your feelings and inner world. Both of these ideas can be seen in his philosophical writings.

"It was in the autumn of 1826. I was in a dull state of nerves, such as everybody is occasionally liable to, unsusceptible to enjoyment or pleasurable excitement, one of those moods when what is pleasure at other times, becomes insipid or indifferent… […] I seemed to have nothing left to live for. At first I hoped that the cloud would pass away of itself; but it did not. […]

I frequently asked myself, if I could, or if I was bound to go on living, when life must be passed in this manner. I generally answered to myself that I did not think I could possibly bear it beyond a year. When, however, not more than half that duration of time had elapsed, a small ray of light broke in upon my gloom.

I was reading, accidentally, Marmontel's Mémoires, and came to the passage which relates his father's death, the distressed position of the family, and the sudden inspiration by which he, then a mere boy, felt and made them feel that he would be everything to them—would supply the place of all that they had lost. A vivid conception of the scene and its feelings came over me, and I was moved to tears. From this moment my burden grew lighter. The oppression of the thought that all feeling was dead within me was gone. I was no longer hopeless. […] I gradually found that the ordinary incidents of life could again give me some pleasure; that I could again find enjoyment, not intense, but sufficient for cheerfulness, in sunshine and sky, in books, in conversation, in public affairs; and that there was, once more, excitement, though of a moderate, kind, in exerting myself for my opinions, and for the public good. Thus the cloud gradually drew off, and I again enjoyed life; and though I had several relapses, some of which lasted many months, I never again was as miserable as I had been.

The experiences of this period had two very marked effects on my opinions and character. In the first place, they led me to adopt a theory of life, very unlike that on which I had before I acted […] I never, indeed, wavered in the conviction that happiness is the test of all rules of conduct, and the end of life. But I now thought that this end was only to be attained by not making it the direct end. Those only are happy (I thought) who have their minds fixed on some object other than their own happiness; on the happiness of others, on the improvement of mankind, even on some art or pursuit, followed not as a means, but as itself an ideal end. Aiming thus at something else, they find happiness by the way. […]

The other important change which my opinions at this time underwent, was that I, for the first time, gave its proper place, among the prime necessities of human well-being, to the internal culture of the individual. […] The cultivation of the feelings became one of the cardinal points in my ethical and philosophical creed. And my thoughts and inclinations turned in an increasing degree towards whatever seemed capable of being instrumental to that object.

I now began to find meaning in the things, which I had read or heard about the importance of poetry and art as instruments of human culture."

Related Posts