-
Essay / Higher and Lower Pleasures: Their Effects on Millian...
In this article, I examine Mill's distinction between higher and lower pleasures that he presents in his Utilitarianism. Next, I raise objections to Mill's distinction by focusing on the ambiguity of his definition of pleasures and his conception of the competent judge. I conclude that by recalculating the definition of pleasures, its distinction between higher and lower pleasures can support a broader theory of utilitarianism.1. Examining Mill's DistinctionUtilitarianism is a moral theory rooted in the belief that happiness, which is understood as pleasure and deprivation of pain, is the only thing that is intrinsically good. Mill's endorsement of this "greatest happiness principle" is as follows: 1.1: "The creed which accepts as the basis of morality "utility" or the "greatest happiness principle" holds that actions are right to the extent that they tend to promote happiness; false because they tend to produce the opposite of happiness. By happiness we mean pleasure and the absence of pain; through unhappiness, pain and deprivation of pleasure. » Thus, it seems that Mill is inclined to accept a version of Bentham's hedonistic utilitarianism. In other words, Mill seems to endorse a quantitative theory of utilitarianism, which is based on maximizing the duration and intensity of pleasure. However, later in Utilitarianism, Mill addresses an objection regarding the idea that utilitarianism is a theory that "favors sensual or voluptuary activities (e.g. bedbug) over higher or nobler activities (e.g. poetry )”. Thus, he distinguishes between the pleasures of the intellect, the higher pleasures, and the sensual pleasures, the lower. This is to ensure that utilitarianism is not seen as “a doctrine fit only for pigs”. Mill's utilitarianism and higher and lower pleasures by applying an interpretation based on the writings of Donner and Schmidt-Petri. Works Cited Brink, David, "Mill's Moral and Political Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = . second. 2.3Donner, W. and Fumerton, R. Mill, Oxford, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009, 4-5, 15-35. Green, TH, 1883, Prolegomena to Ethics, ed. D. Brink, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003. Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. The classic utilities: Bentham and Mill. Edited by John Troyer. Hackett Publishing Co., 2003.West, Henry R. An Introduction to Mill's Utilitarian Ethics. Cambridge University Press, 2004. 48-73