HAPPINESS
Happiness: In one word, this concept exemplifies the American dream. People go to any
means by which to obtain the many varied materials and issues that induce pleasures in
each individual, and intrinsically, this emotion remains the ultimate goal, John Stuart
Mill, a nineteenth century philosopher, correctly advocated the pursuit of happiness, and
maintained the concept that above all other values, pleasure existed as the final
destination, Mill's hedonistic views correctly and rationally identified a natural human
tendency, and his Utilitarian arguments strongly support the theory that above all else,
happiness is the most important dream to be fulfilled. Upon researching for this paper,
I came across a counter argument, which was based on metaphysics. Immanuel Kant, in
Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, defends his strong beliefs in the issue of a
good will, and surfaces as MM's chief opponent on the topic of metaphysics, The issue
diminishes to a clash between emotions and pleasures verses rationality and logic. Yet,
what use is logic when the good agent is miserable? Mill's stance within Utilitarianism
exists as the more favorable of the two beliefs, for happiness exist as the one
intrinsically favorable element, not an emotionless mind.
The main defender of the Utilitarian system exists within the Greatest happiness
Principle. Mill lived as a chief advocate of this concept, which supports the idea that
a decision is morally correct as long as it increases and encourages pleasures and
happiness. Kant, however, in his endless quest to remain separate from emotions and
thrive only on logic, would argue that autonomy should be placed above happiness in a
list of intrinsic values. A good will, however, does not comfort an individual in any
way if happiness does not accompany this asset, Consider this example of a seemingly
happily married couple. The wife in this duo is madly in love with her husband fiercely
loyal, and completely happy with her marriage and children. The husband, however, as
wrongfully strayed, and had a brief, but damaging affair behind his wife's back. Kant
would argue that autonomy reigns over pleasure, and the woman should therefore want to be
informed of her husband's adultery, Mill would greatly disagree. By revealing the secret
of the past affair, the woman's happy world would be instantly shattered. Her pride
would diminish, her stability would fall apart, and the children especially would be
forced to view a nasty side of their beloved father. In this case, individual control is
greatly overshadowed by the need for happiness. The husband is no longer acting
unfaithful and the family can easily continue to live in a happy realm, If the secret
were to become uncovered, all members of this circumstance unavoidably would become
terribly disappointed, Under the Greatest Happiness Principle, the wife should not be
informed. Since happiness truly lives as the ultimate in human desires, sparing such
immense amounts of pain truly is the logical choice, Mill's argument prevails, and all
those involved remain happy. Through this example, one can easily see that although
autonomy is often a favorable feature, it does not overshadow the importance of
happiness.
One of the main arguments against Utilitarianism exist in the lack of apparent fairness.
An advocate of the Kantian logic principle would argue that Mill's belief system does not
allow for equal treatment, When considering what is best for an entire society, however,
it is necessary for certain individuals to endure suffering. The good of society remains
the ultimate goal, and unfortunate pain is therefore inevitable, If young children are
being killed in a certain community, the obvious good for this society is discovering and
punishing the murderer. Especially when children are involved, people automatically
demand prompt justice. The officials of this area have searched immensely for the
accused, yet no leads have surfaced, and the community suddenly erupts with anger, they
demand that someone be punished, As a Utilitarian, the police chief sees a window of
opportunity. A drug dealer has recently been brought in on yet another drug selling
offense, and the chief decides to coerce the invaluable member of society into confessing
the crime at hand, By doing so, the community instantly reunites in support and a
dangerous and deadly revolt is avoided, and a menace to society is right back where he
would have been regardless of his confession: behind bars, Kant, however, would argue
that logically, the chase for the true offender should continue. He would shun the
emotional decision to make the whole society happy by ignoring the rational decisions.
But since the community obviously chooses happiness over logic, Kant's arguments are
irrelevant. In addition, Kant believes in a decision making process completely separate
from the natural human emotions, Such a demand is possible only for a character such as
Star Trek's Dr. Spock, for human emotions are as much a part of every day life as the
decision making process itself. Logically speaking, therefore, Mill's Utilitarianism
arguments maintain the largest dose of validity.
Other opponents to the philosophical viewpoint of Utilitarianism state that followers of
this belief system often promote an ignorant lifestyle, They maintain that advocates of
the Greatest Happiness Principle believe in the theory that "ignorance is bliss," Again,
such reasoning is quite faulty. Displaying the erroneousness of this statement can be
done by examining the issue of AIDS, An opponent of Utilitarianism would say an Infected
HIV victim would not want to be aware of his disorder, Such a belief is extremely
incorrect. Mill and other Utilitarian are strong advocates of education, for with
intelligence, greater levels of achievement and happiness can be obtained. A member of
this belief system would rightly argue that being aware of the disorder could increase
long-term happiness, for treatments and support from friends and family could greatly aid
the victim's fight against his or her alhnents, Mills therefore strongly support
education systems and believe in making society as a whole as happy as possible. In the
case of the AIDS victim, a Utilitarian would also support the notification of the
disorder to the victim in order to spare others of contracting the virus, The happiness
of the majority would not be increased by an unknowing HIV carrier spreading the disease
to other defenseless individuals, Utilitarianism clearly is not a ignorant way to live,
and the Kantian philosophy of ignoring the irrational system of emotions cannot refute
this standard.
Without happiness, the other opportunities and necessities lose nearly all levels of
importance. A true Utilitarian supports only those concepts that promote the highest
levels of pleasures, and as Mill states, encourages only those actions that promote real
happiness, From a Kantian viewpoint, rationality and the possession of a good will
remains the most important element, but even someone with the truest and most logical of
intentions can easily exist in a realm of pure depression. The one link that exists
between these opposite belief systems is the concept that, all decisions should be made
outside of one's personality. The key is that Kant said this decisions should be made
without any regard for human emotions, A request of this magnitude is a part of a utopian
society only, for ignoring one's emotions is an illogical assumption in itself, If your
child and wife are both dying, deciding which one to save cannot be made without some
emotional influence, Utilitarianism allows for the emotional side of life but requests
only that the Greatest Happiness Principle be strictly followed. Any truly decent human
being naturally follows such a request every day, Decisions are made based on the
greatest level of happiness, That way, the largest majority of people benefit, and the
greatest amount of happiness is achieved. Yet as Kant believed, a more morally correct
decision lies at the heart of every dilemma.
How does one decide who is morally more correct to save in an instance where two
cherished loved ones are passing away, and only one individual may be saved? And even
more importantly, how does one do so without regard emotions? I personally feel that
living strictly by the doctrine of Kantian philosophy is completely impossible. Being a
Utilitarian and hedonist, such as Mill, makes more sense to me.
|