When Mill talks about what makes one pleasure greater than another he states that
" if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure"
, which I disagree with since he says that moral obligation doesn't factor into pleasure. I think the main problem with this is the regret that can follow from doing something that is pleasurable at the time, but later leads to a decreased amount of pleasure. A good example of this problem would be drugs and procrastination. You would probably gain more pleasure on a weeknight by drinking and partying than helping a friend with their homework and doing yours, but you would then feel bad afterward physically from a possible hangout and also mentally since you would probably feel regret for not helping out a friend or doing your own work. His argument seems to also be in favor of procrastination since usually not doing work is more fun than doing it, even if doing your work might lead to more pleasure in the future. An example of this would be practicing an instrument since you won't get much pleasure out of it at first, but once you get a decent mastery of it you will gain a lot more pleasure out of playing your instrument than procrastinating.
I think that a good way to resolve this would be to look at choices in terms of net pleasure instead of immediate pleasure. This seems like it would somewhat balance things out since usually doing the more pleasurable thing now, leads to less pleasure able things later on (especially with procrastination) and vice versa.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.