Blog #4

I believe that the object list theory is the most defensible. Each of the objections, presented in class, I would like to try to refute.
As the objection to "just a grab bag of stuff" - a rejoinder from Aristotle was added -"we have to consider who we're dealing with - social, rational beings." To add to that rejoinder, it is not just a grab bag of random things - if we expand from Aristotle each applies to a social, rational  being and each aspect relates to each other. Desire to satisfy would relate to knowledge, by the means that we attempt to satisfy our achievements through which we use knowledge and in that we find pleasure. When we achieve something, whether it is an art project or a paper, there is some beauty in what we created - as for the people creating them there is the existence of relationships that in turn create beauty, such as children or a family, and they result in feeling pleasure and pleasure results in a happy mental state. As for freedom, we learn by knowledge about its existence and thus we are free to achieve what we'd like to and find beauty in what we deem fit and all of this results in a good mental state.
 The objection to this theory of being too paternalistic. Paternalistic is defined as benevolent, which is well meaning/kind, but sometimes intrusive.  Looking directly at the definition I find a problem with there being something as "too well-meaning". So, I feel that it is the assumption that those who object to this view find it too intrusive. How can one not be intrusive if trying to figure out what is inherently good. To solve this question, we have to study humans and their deeper thoughts and wants, until there comes to be a general consensus. The list that is compiled by this theory appears as common sense or goals that everyone, in some way, strives for.

I believe the theory of Objective List is the most defensible among the three Utilitarian theories. The premis is simply put around achieving things that increase well being like, knowledge, beauty, relationships and freedom. These are all very necessary things to the human state. Knowledge helps with knowing how to live one's life and function within a society of other humans. Relationships allow people to build bonds with one another to help live which is vital as humans social creatures. Beauty can be taken in many different aspects but to focus on what one can change about his or her own physique is never self harming, such as exercise and proper diet which aid a person in living a better life. All of these objectives lead to a greater sense of happiness and with more happiness there is a yearning to go farther and achieve more. The objection so far could be that this is paternalistic in that we have a set list that we have to appeal to. Although this may seem domineering the list inst far from the truth and many aspects can be changed to fit people within different circumstances, there is no insane specificity that would require someone to stop farming and practice Mozart. A second response would be that it seems judgmental to require everyone to better themselves on a predetermined scale and to consider those that cannot have access to certain aspects of these things. As a rejoinder I would have to say that logically if one is not in the position to increase these aspects, it is better to improve one rather than none at all. As long as something is improving the yearning for advancement and achievement continues and the rest will follow.

Blog #4

Though there are objections to all theories of what is good, I believe the objective list theory is the most defensible because it covers what makes a person’s life good. This theory takes the stance that pleasure, knowledge, achievement, beauty, relationships, and freedom are what makes someone’s well-being go up. I think this accurate and most defensible because I have never encountered someone that had a good life, or a happy life without these things. But I do believe that some of the things on the list are more important to having a good life than others. For example, I believe that having freedom is more important than beauty. I think someone can still have a satisfying, good life without being beautiful or being surrounded by beauty. But I do not believe one can have a full good life without freedom, in my opinion, it is a fundamental necessity for happiness, and beauty is secondary.

An objection to this theory is that it is too paternalistic, meaning it is too bossy. Though it is difficult to obtain knowledge, achievement, beauty, relationships, and freedom at the same time I do not think it is impossible. Besides, I do not believe that living a good life is easy. I think one must work at achieving the things on the list to be good every day or they will become stagnant.

Blog 4

Of the three theories I would say that the most defendable theory would be the objective list theory.  I say this because I believe that the least amount of people would disagree with this theory.  The theory has the objective that goods, such as love, knowledge, achievement, and so on, can benefit people.  I feel like people would not argue that the way to live life is to enjoy it to the fullest and look to reap and benefits that we can to make us happier and a better person.  Many of the things that are on this list are things that we strive for day to day, and want to have.    However, there are still the objections that it is an arbitrary list and there is no way to make just one list.  I think that this theory is something that we should all try to use because even though the list may not be complete, and we may not agree on all of the things on the list, as long as you can take away and strive for some of the goods on the list, then the theory will benefit you and those around you.  This theory is most defensible because it is hard for someone to argue that they don’t want achievement.  The reason that we go out every day and work or go to school is for the purpose of achievement and that sense of pride.  Someone is not able to argue against knowledge because it can only help you and your life.  I think that this is the most defensible theory because it is hard to argue against something that we believe is intrinsically good.

Blog 4

Of the various definitions of what is intrinsically good, I think the one theory that carries the most significance and the most defensible to me has to be the objective list theory. It doesn’t deduce happiness merely to pleasure, much like the mental state theory does. Instead there are many different facets that make up what is good. I find the same issue with the desire-satisfaction theory. I feel as though desire satisfaction may not necessarily be intrinsically good, much like the objectives presented state. I very much agree with the objections to this theory. Because the objective-list theory is somewhat of an umbrella over the other two theories, I believe that the other two simply fall short of defining what is good in life.

The objection to the objective list theory is that it is too paternalistic and tells someone what is actually good in life. I disagree with this. My rejoinder to the objection would be that the objective list theory can be adapted to different people’s opinions. For instance, some people might get a sense of achievement from small everyday tasks, and others may not. This does not make it any less intrinsically good than if someone were to achieve something great. Regardless of the magnitude of an achievement, they are still an intrinsically good part of life.

Another important topic on the objective list theory is relationships. Relationships are a necessary human experience. In my sociology class, we learned that without human interaction, a person wouldn't know how to be a functioning part of society. Relationships allow a person to grow and form stable connections with other human beings. Relationships don’t always bring the best mental states which is why they wouldn't fall under the mental state theory, but they are good in nature. 

I do not think one of the three Utilitarian theories is strong enough to be fully defensible; however if I were to choose one it would be the Objective List Theory.  This theory strives to increase things that will foster knowledge and relationships; things imperative for modern human civilization.  We have always been social creatures but over time we have become the only animal to ever live in such close proximity to each other or work with each other so comprehensively.    To foster relationships with others and achievements in the contemporary world means to be generally successful and happy as a result.  I think that the Objective List Theory is the most applicable to today’s society however I also think that the Mental State Theory has its merits.  This theory instead strives to foster internal wellbeing and mental solidarity.  I believe that it is important to further personal growth almost more than relationships.  I think to combine the two theories would be the best of all worlds because you would have a focus on personal development but also on furthering things around you that will increase your overall wellbeing in an environmental and social aspect.  

Objective List Theory

Consider theories of goodness and intrinsic value of the sort we have been discussing in class through today.  Which theory is most defensible, and why?

Objective List Theory

Considering the theories of goodness and intrinsic value, I personally feel that the Objective list theory is the most defendable. With the objective list theory one of the main parts of it are all the basic needs of that person are met. Looking at the list we came up with in class of equality, desert, narrative, and beauty. All of these things that are intrinsically good could be put onto someone’s “list”, with a major emphasis being put on the wellbeing of that person. Almost taking a utilitarianism approach of good equal’s wellbeing. This theory is saying that a person is benefiting by having their basic needs met which ultimately in the end will produce the best result. By having their basic needs met this would give that person the chance to then further there “list” to try to include things like beauty, because they now have equality. For instance if there is a group of children living in poverty in a third world country and they are provided with the basic needs to live , food, water, shelter, this is going to enhance their life. They will then be equal; in turn they will now have the opportunity to make advancements. Looking at the list once a person’s basic needs are met they can they search to find other things in the world that bring them happiness. Going back to the utilitarianism view of good equal’s wellbeing, in this case this can be seen as true. By having their basic needs met through this object list theory, they are benefiting more greatly than applying any other theory, and they are doing so with the least amount of suffer and hardship possible.

Blog post #4

Post to the blog by Wednesday night at 11:00 PM.  Consider theories of goodness and intrinsic value of the sort we have been discussing in class through today.  Which theory is most defensible, and why?

Pleasure or fulfillment

I am attracted to the concept of utilitarian ethics and maximizing the good for all of society- however I am not convinced that the good we should seek is necessarily pleasure and the absence of pain. I think that a better suited term would be fulfillment instead of pleasure or happiness. I am not sure that Mill would disagree with that, he makes the distinction between lower and higher pleasures, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” (15). I believe that he is speaking more to fulfillment, specifically fulfillment of the mind to be synonymous to pleasure. Educational fulfillment can often be far from pleasurable (grueling all-nighters, nightmares about the biodiversity crisis, etc.) but this is still acceptable under Mill’s Utilitarianism. If I learn about the biodiversity crises, have many painful feelings in reaction to it, those pains are what can motivate me to go out and try to save species, which is consistent with maximizing total good, but not necessarily happiness. If instead the code of ethics should be revolved around maximizing fulfillment rather than happiness, I am still not convinced. Mill speaks of “civilized” countries, are those countries with education as Western conceive of it; what does “civilized” mean? If morality is centralized around mental fulfillment (higher pleasures), do more primitive peoples somehow have less morality? I find this a difficult concept to accept as a measure of how we ought to act, if it is so exclusionary. 

The perils of a failure to analyze

I tend to agree with Utilitarianism, and specifically the Greatest Happiness Principle as concepts, but I feel that it is difficult to present arguments for Utilitarianism that don’t either read like a list of hypothetical “pros” that would happen were everyone to act in a perfectly utilitarian fashion or are based off of refuting a possible  objection to the doctrine (most all of which I feel Mill already addressed sufficiently in what we’ve read,) so I am at somewhat of a loss of what to do here. The most I can say is that we must always be conscious not to take things to extremes to avoid situations in which one might be denied personal choice or, in an even more extreme example, get in to a situation similar to that in the Ursula K. Le Guin short story The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas.

 

My sincere apologies for the seemingly low-effort post, I’ve spent the better part of four hours drawing a series of increasingly frustrating blanks.

Blog 3

In reading these first two chapters, I thought a lot about the objection to the Greatest Happiness Principle that said that, "happiness, in any form, cannot be the rational purpose of human life and action; because, in the first place, it is unattainable." I found that to be quite a disturbing thought and wondered whether the objector meant that a "happy" life in general was unattainable, or that continuous happiness was unattainable (which Mill discusses), or that total happiness with no sadness or suffrage was unattainable. I do agree with Mill's explanation that if it is meant that continuous highly pleasurable excitement is meant, then it is pretty obvious that it is impossible to keep that pleasure or happiness going on forever. It is possible, however, that pleasurable experiences and excitements can happen with breaks in between them continuously. I would go on to add that this is possible because there is such a wide variety of experiences, both large and small, that people find pleasurable and make them happy. Experiences as small as someone holding the door open for someone who is handicapped to experiences as large as someone getting married to the love of their life can both be pleasurable experiences to a person. Obviously there is a difference in the quality of happiness felt between the two experiences, but those small pleasurable experiences tend to happen in a higher quantity than the big ones, and while they may not be a huge factor in the total happiness of one's entire life, they can give a person boost of pleasure for doing something morally good which may boost not only that person's current mood, but also the current mood of the person that was on the receiving end of the act of kindness. If a person is able to build the quantity of those small pleasurable experiences, then they can achieve those boosts of happiness more often and affect the "short-term" happiness of a wider and wider range of people. Pairing that quantity of small pleasurable experiences with the fewer often but much higher quality experiences of pleasure that can alter the overall happiness level of one's entire life, then I would find it pretty difficult to think that happiness is unattainable.

Utilitarianism

The line that struck me most from the first two chapters of Mill’s Utilitarianism was, “better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” It seems like a very sad proclamation, but indeed the best that anyone can hope for. The drunken fool has to imbibe himself, just to forget about all the pain and trouble in his life. In this sense he is momentarily “satisfied,” but it’s no way to live a life and there will certainly be nothing fruitful for him to gain. Perhaps the greatest example of this is Daniel Keyes’ short story Flowers for Algernon. It provides a succinct, heartbreaking and powerful argument for the pursuit of noble pleasures over base ones. In the story Charlie has an extremely low IQ of 68, but is overall very content with his life as a janitor, and the friends with whom he spends time. After an experimental surgery his IQ is tripled and continues to rapidly increase. He can no longer relate to anyone, realizes his friends are not good friends and ultimately loses his job. As his health and intelligence then begin to decline he is deeply saddened. It is the case for most humans that once our eyes have been opened to the truth, it is difficult for us to close them again, and we do ourselves a disservice to turn our back on what we know to be true. It is disheartening, to think of leading a life aware of the truth and be ultimately disappointed is all we can ever hope to attain in life. Unfortunately it really is the best any of us can hope for. Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. 

Dissatisfied Socrates v. Satisfied Fool

       While reading Utilitarianism, I was able to make a connection to my educational psychology class reading about the motivation of students in schools and the level of happiness experienced by humans with “higher faculties.” Using the findings from the book we are currently reading, Drive by Daniel Pink, I would support the claim made by Mill that it is “better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” I think this is a strong claim to make, and while I agree with the conclusion, I do not believe Mill does enough to silence criticism of it. I believe proponents of the argument that being satisfied by more base pleasure is better than experiencing the happier pleasures of higher faculty happiness would ask for more from Mill, considering the pain that can often be experienced with that higher form of happiness.

            At this point, Mill would have benefited from Pink’s book. Looking at the current psychology of how people are motivated, Pink believes businesses and schools are motivating employees and students ineffectively. The extrinsic motivation used by employers and teachers is not the most efficient form of motivation and is not consistent with human nature. Instead, Pink and leading psychologists argue humans are best motivated by intrinsic factors. We want to do things independently, we want to do things to gain mastery, and we want to things that have a purpose we understand, which are all different than the current motivational structure of doing things for rewards.

            I think this relates to Mill because it shows that humans are most motivated, and find the most happiness in doing things for their intrinsic value, not for something as base as a simple reward or punishment. 

The "Best" Choice

My attention was drawn to the Mills’ idea of there being a distinction between happiness and content.  He argues that a “superior being,” who makes decisions that would seem to make him less happy, is not sacrificing happiness, because the superior being always chooses to be aware of the imperfections of the world, and that though he may be less content than an inferior being, his choice must be better because he knows both perspectives, making it better to be “a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.”

 I disagree with his use of the word happiness here because I think that cases often arise where someone sacrifices their happiness in order to do what they feel is their ethical obligation.  Mills would counter by saying that these people are not really sacrificing their happiness, but choosing to be less content so that they can be happier, effectively redefining happiness, which is fair enough.

Where his argument falls apart is when he continues describe this happiness as we would commonly think of the word, saying that the imperfections someone is conscious of “will not make him envy the being who is indeed unconscious of the imperfections.”  This, however, is not always true.  Before making this point, Mills makes an argument about how people act, and uses peoples’ decisions to support his idea that this higher consciousness is “better.”  Now that he gives this statement that has numerous counterexamples (I will give one shortly), he ceases to rely on the actions of individuals as support, and his claim that this way of living is “better” is now just a representation of his opinion.

The first counterexample that springs to mind is when, in The Lord of the Rings, Frodo Baggins despairingly says to Gandalf, “I wish the ring had never come to me.  I wish none of this had happened.”  He does indeed envy all those who were able to remain in Hobbiton, and while he stays with his quest with a little convincing from Gandalf, a lesser hobbit might easily have abandoned it.

Blog 3

In Mills book, Utilitarianism, he states that “ there ought either to be some one fundamental principle or law, at the root of all morality, or if there be several, there should be a determinate order of precedence among them:” (Mills pg. 7) I object to the position and will show via the example of starvation and a starving population that the fundamental principle that no one should starve is not achieved. With a starving population typically very young people starve and also elderly people starve. Usually middle age people to young adults do not starve.  If Mills principle applied the available food would spread out over the entire population and not just received by the young adult to middle age group. Mills position is that no one should starve, yet why is it that the very young or old starve, in a starving population. It seems as if determinant order of precedent among them, so I want to know if that decision consciously made to share the food or is there a made up rule that is put into play? It is not moral that children and old people starve and people in the middle age are the ones who do not starve first. 

Blog #3

I feel that Mills does make a fantastic argument. I however struggle with one of his points. When he talks about "it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides. "

I feel like Mills assumes that knowledge is the key to finding happiness. From my experience, it is the simplest things that make me happy. The smell of freshly cut grass or playing with my dog - which doesn't exactly require a deeper enlightenment of knowledge. To compare the reasoning for happiness seems unrealistic. I've always thought of happiness as a subjective thing.  Everyone is made happy by something different and to different extents. If we do assume that knowledge is the key to finding happiness - how is it that there are people who refuse to go to college - who refuse to read a book? Both things are steeped in the epitome of knowledge. Do they never perceive this 'true happiness' because they didn't pick up a book or spend thousands on a degree?

Sometimes I feel that being a fool would be more satisfying; would cause me more happiness. For being a fool, you do not need to comprehend technical ideas, you escape the troubles of the world, you would live a life simplistically. Living in such a way that your actions are not shrouded in other lights. Like Shayann had pointed out pursuits of happiness will eventually conflict due to different cultural attitudes. Living as a fool, you would be ignorant to that recourse - however being ignorant to that fact wouldn't cause you displeasure or pain- you simply wouldn't know.

Utilitarian Standard

One of the quotes in the reading goes as follows: "...for that standard is not the agent's own greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether."

When I first read the utilitarian theory, I originally thought it was attempting to say that the standard was the agent's own greatest happiness, of which I thought, okay, what if murdering people made me happy? How would that be conducive to society? As I continued reading I understood he was saying that the standard would have to encompass the greatest amount of happiness together. Which made me think, okay what if we lived in a society where murder made most people happy. Under my interpretation of utilitarianism murder would then be accepted because it amounts to happiness, but if that is the case, is ethics and morality important? If something makes the common good happy and is pleasurable to them, yet is morally wrong, would it then be okay? Where is the line drawn? How is happiness truly defined?

Blog #3

One point in particular stuck out at me in these chapters: “Namely, that pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends; and that all other desirable things (which are as numerous in the utilitarian as in any other scheme) are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain” (10). Mills stated earlier that one’s identification of pleasure and pain are open to interpretation. With this I agree, however, I think what is “desirable” to someone can vary as well. Not only that, but I think human actions should not be broken down into such simplistic points (pleasure and pain).  An act that is desirable to oneself may cause pain to oneself, or even to another person.  In this case, pain would be present, but the act would have been desirable. One example that comes to mind is a soldier laying down his/her own life for another.  To that individual, dying is a desirable act, but it is not free from pain.  But to return to my original point, which was that “desire” can vary from person to person.  This also goes along with differentiating morals.  What someone could consider desirable based on personal morals, may be completely different for someone else, which also means that the definitions of pleasure and pain to those two individuals would also differentiate.  I’m not so sure linking pleasure, pain, and desire are the most accurate words to relate to morality with. 

The main argument Mill is making that we should strive to attain the “Greatest Happiness Principle,” meaning we should act in a way that will create the most happiness. This does not necessarily mean that what makes us happy is necessarily the best course to take. While I believe that this method ideal, I don’t think it is necessarily plausible. I think it is extremely difficult to make people happy without making people unhappy. Finding the point at which more people are happy than those that are unhappy is a task that is very difficult. Regardless of this, people have a natural tendency to act in a manner that benefits him or herself. This leads into the next point of Mill’s article.

Mill also writes about “higher and lower pleasures” and states that human beings have a natural inclination towards what is intrinsically better even if the higher pleasure is accompanied by discontent later down the road. I find this hard to grasp as well. What if an action that you believe is a higher pleasure, for example drinking or doing drugs, you become addicted to? According to Mill, this is still the better option because you believe it to be better. However, it violates the greatest happiness principle. When someone becomes addicted to drugs, it doesn’t only affect them. It affects family members and friends as well. While this may be making you happy, it causes more unhappiness to those around you. I don’t think the two principles can always coincide with one another because what may make you happy may not make others happy. 

Blog 3

When reading this piece by John Stuart Mill, i was rather intrigued by his ideals and his explanation of things that normally I do not think about. As i was reading through the piece i found myself disagreeing with one of his views. He claimed that happiness is not the reason for existence which I find myself disagreeing with. I believe someone else posted in the blog about the same claim but agreed with Mills. In my opinion the real key to life IS happiness and that does not mean that their is a universal happiness for everyone. Everyone has their own ways of achieving happiness in life and i believe that if you find what truly makes you happy in life, then you have lived a purposeful life. Now there may be debates on when this ultimate happiness is achieved but i still believe that the reason for our existence is so that we can acheive full happiness.

What is the greater pleasure

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.

The fundamental issue I find

When it comes to Mills, I enjoy the idea that the proper way to live life is to do things that cause inherent happiness and that can make society happy. It is a true virtue that really is quite nice to embrace. However the flaw I see here is that things that make certain people happy are completely against other people's motives of  happiness. based on geographic, sociopolitical perspective, and cultural ideology there is more often than not a conflict of interest when it comes to happiness. The reason why humans have fought so much is actually because of conflict of interest when it comes to happiness. To bring an example, when the Romans were conquering the Germanic lands, the soldiers and citizens were happy, they had more land to grow and tax on and slaves of the indigenous Germanic people to help harvest and join the military ranks. However this did not make those Germanic people's happy and eventually the would end up destroying the western portion of the empire to create western Europe as we know it to the dissatisfaction of the Romans. There are hundreds of thousands of more examples and its all because one side did something for the purpose of being happy that made the other side unhappy. The idea of doing things to make the entire world happy and people to embrace unity in making others happy only works on a small scale, When eventually it comes that happiness becomes a conflict interest for two parties because of their different variations on what would make the other happy.

Mill's Utilitarianism and Pain

John Stuart Mill describes the central point of Utilitarianism; to increase of happiness at the point of decreasing pain. He also acknowledges the presence of pain in small amounts. He explicitly states, “The happiness which they meant was not a life of rapture, but moments of such, in an existence made up of few and transitory pains, many and various pleasures”. I enjoy that he mentions pain as a regular part of life, but I think he diminishes the importance it can play in people’s lives. I’m in agreement with Mills that happiness and pain are direct opposites, and that very few sound individuals desire to be pain. But I would argue that pain is more necessary than he admits. Mills splits general happiness into tranquility and excitement in the following statement, “The main constituents of a satisfied life appear to be two, either of which by itself is often found sufficient for the purpose: tranquility, and excitement”. Within this statement he is acknowledging the importance of juxtaposition of the feelings to make each feeling stronger and more impacting. You cannot appreciate excitement without moments of tranquility and vice versa. I would like to expand on this need for opposite feelings and say that happiness is felt stronger because humans experience pain, so in all respects pain cannot be entirely eliminated. I would like to further question that without pain or unpleasant experiences would we as humans even be able to appreciate being happy at all?

So my question for Mill would be, is it possible to experience true happiness by eliminating the knowledge of pain? If not, where does this leave Utilitarianism, because the goal is to decrease and eliminate pain? I think addressing this dualism in more depth would strengthen his argument about what constitutes general happiness, as it’s applicable to Utilitarianism.

Envy an Ignoramous

Connor Newlin

                Mill makes a very strong argument and for the first time I am thinking someone has come up with a decent, definitive answer as to explain human action. He expertly addresses all objections to utilitarianism before getting into the thick of his analysis and for the most part they seem indisputable. My lone objection to his argument is over the idea of ignorance. The phrase “ignorance is bliss” I believe has some truths to it but Mill suggests that higher knowledge or enlightenment is always preferable to being a satisfied fool. He compares people to swine and says that everyone who would rather be a dissatisfied human than a satisfied swine. I think that by making this analogy everyone will agree with the idea however things are not always this simple in the real world.

                Sometimes ignorance may truly be a preferable alternative and this is where I find fault with his argument. There are some that would agree that the government has secrets that it cannot tell its people and I think to protect its citizens a government must sometimes keep secrets and I can acknowledge that I am content with not knowing this information. Mill would say the unaware will always prefer their ignorance because they don’t know the possible benefits or advancement from new information; they are content with how things are. However, I think we can all acknowledge a time where we envy a small child as they live their lives worry free, unaware of the future stresses and pressures from the adult world. In this case a higher intelligence desires the life of a less intelligent or ignorant human being. This is the only small objection that I can think of otherwise I look forward to see how utilitarianism is expanded upon.

Argument against Mill's view on hapiness.

When Mills present his view about how utilitarianism is indeed more religious than any other doctrine because God wants us to be happy, so sacrificing anything for that cause is okay. I disagree. For one, there is no blueprint detailing exactly what God means when he says “happiness.” I think before Mills makes up a rash assumption, he should at least figure out what does God mean when He talks about happiness. It can be from just living a normal average life, or it could mean, in Mills terms, sacrificing your own happiness for the greater good of other people’s happiness. We don’t know for sure, all we can to be assume. I also disagree and would say that God would not like utilitarianism. For instance, say a terrorist has the president hostage and he won’t let the president go until we blow up several of our own states with innocent people living within them. Mill, to my knowledge, would say that the president should die because he’s one person and states have thousands upon millions of people living in them.  What I don’t agree with is that by killing the president, even if it’s only one person, it’s still going against what God stands for. One of the ten commandants say “you shall not murder,” and God did not put a number on that because even killing one person is horrible in His eyes, even if it’s compared to millions of other lives. Every life, according to God, is valuable and it doesn’t discriminate; it does not matter if it’s one person being killed or millions, they are still people. So in that regards, I don’t think it would make sense to say that utilitarianism is a religious doctrine to God just because it causes happiness towards greater number of people, because its contradicting to what God actually meant.

Blog Post #3

In reading  Utilitarianism I found myself agreeing with much of John S Mill’s arguments, especially when he states that happiness is not the reason for existence. He asserts this claim on page 9 when he says, “But these supplementary explanations do not affect the theory of life on which this theory on morality is grounded-namely, that pleasure, and freedom from pain, as the only things desirable as ends…” (9). I agreed with his opinion because I think that there is much more to life then gaining happiness. I believe this because there are so many important life experiences that do not conduce happy feelings, such as getting a college degree or taking care of a dying relative. One must work hard and sometimes one cannot be rewarded with happiness, but it doesn’t make the experience any less important. Mills and I agree, even though it is not the sole reason for our existence, that happiness is very important. Sometimes, like the examples I cited above, we go into situations that wont have a happy pay off but they will make us more educated or more well-rounded, if this later leads to happiness then that is icing on the cake.  If ones only goal is to be happy then our world would not be successful or thriving. We occasionally must be unhappy to make a meaningful change or difference to the world around you.