Happiness is such an elusive concept, so I was glad to see an explanation about the different kind of pleasures from Mill. I know that when I hear the word "pleasure" my mind goes to sex and food and sleep instead of puzzles or solving complex math problems.
As an English major, the greatest pleasure I know is experiencing stories, no matter the format. The greatest, cleanest happiness I have ever experienced came from reading my favorite book for the first time. (Oh, and by the way, when I say "cleanest" I don't mean as in the opposite of dirty or sinful. I just mean cleanest in the sense that I experienced it with no restrictions, hesitations, or fear that it would get ruined somehow.) So why isn't that the first thing that comes to mind when I hear pleasure? Now that I think about it, it's usually not even the seventh thing that comes to mind. Why are the lower pleasures what one--or at least that I--usually thinks of first? Is it because those are more universal while one person's highest pleasure could be another person's highest hell?
I do agree with Mills that life would be incomplete without the higher pleasures, but it feels oddly elitist to go around saying, "better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied." Don't get me wrong, I'm not championing ignorance or anything. But if there are some that are happy with just the lower pleasures, what's the harm? I highly doubt that we would all turn away from higher pleasures simply because it was ok to just be content with the lower ones.
What is the ultimate goal of life? It is to be happy, right? Happy in the sense of feeling well. Even of the Declaration of Independent states that the right of every human is to pursuit happiness; obviously we all have certain definition of happiness. That is why I agree with Mill as well and also with Khan; though, in we should consider the happiness for everyone and not only for us. Because if we only think about us that will make us immoral agents.
ReplyDeleteThat's interesting, your last sentence brings to mind Ayn Rand's philosophy. Now, I'm not a fan of Rand (I strongly disagree with 90% of her ideas) but she would say that only thinking about ourselves would actually make us moral. She has a theory about "the virtue of selfishness" and that is an idea I've always found interesting. What if we did only think about ourselves? What if everyone put themselves first before helping anyone else? Give no thought to what others will think of you, only do what's best for you.
DeleteWhen asked for life advice, Lemony Snicket replied, 'One hears it a lot on airplanes: "Make sure you have your own mask on, before helping others with theirs." ' I quite agree with that, and that's the 10% of Rand's philosophy that I can get behind. Sometimes selfishness is self-preservation.
I’m so glad someone finally said it! I know we are not the only ones who think of sex when we hear the word pleasure. Now, I understand that that’s not the meaning of pleasure Mill uses, but it’s almost difficult to stray from that idea. I’m sitting here trying to think of someone who is happy only having the lower pleasures. I suppose volunteers who give everything up to go over to a foreign country and help those less fortunate would qualify. Sometimes, those people are forced to live in poverty because there are no other options. Would these people be considered to have “self-interest?” I mean essentially they are doing these good things to fill their internal need for charity. Someone who wants to make a difference does so for the good of others, but also for the good and happiness it will bring them.
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting point and one that I can't get myself to find a good answer for. Is Aristotle right and we ultimately just do good things because it will make US happy? My initial reaction is no, but I have a hard time defending my position. I can only use myself as an example, but I don't know if that invalidates my answer. Basically I am not charitable by nature. I constantly forget to ask people how they are doing when they ask me, for example, and I don't usually feel guilty for not doing "the right thing". So there have been many times when I've had to groan and go back and force myself to do something nice. I force myself because I want to contribute good things to the world, but I never really feel good about myself afterwards, not really. But again, I don't know if I'm a valid example, and religion does play into my wanting to do better so who knows.
DeleteJust like many of you, I also thought of pleasure as in something extravagant. I never really viewed pleasure as finding satisfaction in something as simple as eating, running, or even napping. For the most part, I viewed pleasure as in means of "gaining". For example gaining monetary success, fame, and what not. However now that I think about it most of the times I feel pleasure when I have to give something up instead of gaining something. Well after all "higher" and "lower" pleasure are subjective.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Mill ' s version of hedonism is more defined and complex. He make an effort to point that some pleasures aren't just short term. Mill also states that we have to work for some our pleasures and the the work itself can be a source of it. The way I see it is that base desires (eating, drinking, sleeping) are lower pleasures. While utility and a fulfilling life are higher pleasures. Of course as an earlier post stated what higher and Lowe pleasure are is subjective.
ReplyDelete