Conclusion: The happiness of many people is greater than the happiness of a single individual.
Premises:
1. Pleasure is measured in quality and quantity (2, 12).
a. Quality of pleasure is based off of humans using their better abilities (2, 9).
b. Quantity is based off of the greater number of people being happy (i).
c. Quality actions also make up the quantity of good among humans (2, 19).
2. It is honorable to give up happiness for other's happiness (2, 16).
a. One can live without happiness. For example: martyrs or heroes (2, 15).
b. A lack of happiness is not present by these people, but a transfer of happiness to others (2, 16).
c. A loss of happiness that does not upturn total happiness is not a true expense (2, 17).
d. The act of sacrificing happiness, for the greater good of others, is actually good; returning happiness to the sufferer (i).
3. Individual pursuit of happiness adds to society's happiness (i).
a. One who helps others for his own benefit adds to society's and one's own happiness (2, 18).
b. A lot of actions are intended for individuals, which makes up the world's good (2, 19).
c. The exponential growth of happiness in society is greater than an individual's happiness (i).
4. The "greatest happiness principle" supports the "martyrs" and heroes" (2, 17).
a. Utilitarianism acknowledges the "greatest happiness principle" (2, 7).
b. The "greatest happiness principle" is based off of overall happiness (2, 7).
c. Although it is less happy for the "martyr" it is supported by Utilitarians and the "greatest happiness principle" (2, 16).
In part 2d of your argument you state, “the act of sacrificing happiness, for the greater good of others, it actually good; returning happiness to the sufferer”. I understand how the happiness of a greater amount of people is better than he happiness of just one however, but isn’t it our moral responsibility to try to make someone happy? For example, if all of your friends wanted one thing, but you wanted another, so you went along with what they wanted, you would have then made a sacrifice for them and become the sufferer. Isn’t it then their duty to suffer and make you the beneficiary of their sacrifice? Wouldn’t this eventually lead to a never ending cycle of debts, favors, and repayments?
ReplyDeleteIn part 2d of your argument you state, “the act of sacrificing happiness, for the greater good of others, it actually good; returning happiness to the sufferer”. I understand how the happiness of a greater amount of people is better than he happiness of just one however, but isn’t it our moral responsibility to try to make someone happy? For example, if all of your friends wanted one thing, but you wanted another, so you went along with what they wanted, you would have then made a sacrifice for them and become the sufferer. Isn’t it then their duty to suffer and make you the beneficiary of their sacrifice? Wouldn’t this eventually lead to a never ending cycle of debts, favors, and repayments?
ReplyDeleteIt could be helpful to better make the connection between pleasure and happiness according to Utilitarian ideals in P1. For example, happiness is utility, which is pleasure along with freedom from pain (pg. 7). Then you could go into how pleasure is measured in quality (those that are more desirable and more valuable than others) and quantity. Premise 2a and 2b seem to contradict one another because of your following statement “a lack of happiness is not present by these people…” Maybe highlight self-sacrifice earlier in your premise here. It could be beneficial to add in 2d that the act of sacrificing [one’s own] happiness is actually good [not in itself but because it promotes the total amount of happiness]. Overall, your outline contains good information but perhaps the premises could be better organized to have the argument flow more logically.
ReplyDeleteI find Mill's thought that the happiness of a majority is greater (=more valuable? worth more? more important?) than the value of an individual's happiness to be strange. A collection of happy people cannot exist without the happiness of the individuals the group consists of. So how can the happiness of the group be more important, if one thing leads to the other? Your third premise "Individual pursuit of happiness adds to society's happiness (i)" actually supports my thought that it is true that individuals happiness is more important, because it creates society's happiness. Maybe I am misinterpreting the use of the word greater?
ReplyDeleteOverall, you do a good job at constructing your premises to support your conclusion. Mill observes that many people misunderstand utilitarianism by interpreting utility in opposition of pleasure. Therefore, you might want to clarify that utility is defined as pleasure itself and absence from pain. Then, note that utility refers to the “Principle of Greatest Happiness” where happiness is in pleasure and absence from pain. I think this would support your conclusion in the sense that individual suffering alludes to a more valuable pleasure when one gives up happiness like you mention in premise 2. Thus, by definition of the “Principle of Greatest Happiness” one can argue that happiness of many people is more valuable than the happiness of a single individual.
ReplyDelete