Conclusion: Utilitarianism is pleasure without pain as one; not pleasure in itself.
Premises:
1. Pleasure goes hand in hand with freedom from pain (i)
a. Everything desired by the utilitarian is desired for pleasure (7)
b. Everything desired by the utilitarian is desired to promote pleasure and prevent pain (7)
2. Pleasures range in quality (8)
a. Utilitarians acknowledges that some pleasures are more desirable and more valuable than others (8)
b. Some pleasures can be attended with amounts of discontent (9)
3. People differ in the requirements needed to make them happy (9)
a. Pleasure without pain is found in different ways by different people (i)
b. A being with higher faculties requires more to make him happy and is probably capable of more suffering because they can access suffering more than other, more inferior, individuals (9)
4. To the utilitarian, happiness is that for them and everyone around them (17)
a. Happiness is not defined or determined by the person feeling it (or the agent) but by everyone who is concerned (17)
b. Utilitarianism requires individuals to separate themselves from others when judging and identifying happiness (i)
c. Those determining happiness must be impartial
Hey I agree with your analysis here about the Utilitarian view of pleasure as appose to pain. But I have certain questions about how the definition of pain is portrayed by Utilitarianism, is the pain physical or mental or emotional. And if your analysis is correct then can there be exceptions. In the case of physical pain in many regards people like athletes suffer pain in order to reach higher pleasure in the future. This could contradict what is shown in the absence of pain in Utilitarianism. For the same case could be shown by people who suffer physical abuse in order to achieve a higher mental or emotional pleasure. This example could be for instance when the Opus Dei in which they endure physical pain to grasp emotional and spiritual connection and pleasure. This one would contradict the first premise, which states, “Pleasure goes hand and hand with freedom of pain.”
ReplyDeleteFor a convoluted reading like Mill's Utilitarianism, I thought this was a very coherent outline. Since your focus was on pleasure and pain, I thought that you could have elaborated more on what Mill's states about quality/quantity of pleasure. I felt like this was a big part of his rationalization. Instead of narrowing Premise 2 to just "Pleasures range in quality", you could make a more complete premise like: "pleasure range both qualitatively and quantitively". To give further proof to this claim, I think you can add a brief sub-premise about mental cultivation and how the experience of many give legitimacy to a "more desirable pleasure" (8). If something is enjoyed by many people, it is qualitatively a greater pleasure. You do make reference to this in Premise 2, but I don't understand what you mean by "Some pleasures can be attended with amounts of discontent (9)." I feel like discontent is the wrong word to use here because isn't pleasure by definition a pursuit of contentment?
ReplyDeleteIt could be helpful to include the “greatest happiness principle” which states “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (2, 7). I think this could help support your conclusion that utility is pleasure itself and the absence of pain, not the opposition of pleasure. Also, I think that it could be beneficial to incorporate what kind of pleasure utilitarianism involves in premise 2. In class, we talked about how it is egotistic, but not completely and by being egoistic, it makes it seem opposed to the benefit of others, which would go against Mill’s conclusion that the happiness of a group of people is more valuable than the happiness of a single individual. Maybe I misunderstood?
ReplyDeleteI believe you develop a clear argument as you make each point. However, I became confused when I came across premise 4. In your first sub-premise, you state that happiness is not defined by the individual but by the people around him or her. Then it almost seems as you contradict yourself in the next sub-premise by saying individuals must separate themselves from others when determining happiness. My question would be ultimately, who defines happiness, the individual or society? Or perhaps "separate" is not the best word to use because it seems you are stating they cannot be separated as in the earlier sub-premise.
ReplyDeleteI think your outline would be better if the premises were more strongly connected to your conclusion. In chapter 2, Mill mentions that pleasure/absence of pain are only desirable as ends in themselves and how they are the only things inherently “good”. I think this is worth exploring since your focus is on pleasure and pain, perhaps this could be included in premise 2. In addition, I think you could talk about the notion of how one would choose pleasure of a higher quality over a lower kind of pleasure even if the pleasure of higher quality comes with discomfort. If this is incorporated into premise 3, I think it would create a stronger connection with your conclusion.
ReplyDeleteKiara,
ReplyDeleteI think you have a good outline here. It is clear and simple and easy to understand. This is the post I chose to cite in my essay on Mill's argument for Pleasure and Happiness (thank you!). Although this argument focuses generally on the quality of a pleasure (i.e it's ability to promote happiness and avoid pain and suffrance), I think it would strengethen you argument to also include the idea of quantity. Mill states that any amount of pleasures of high quality (higher pleasures) are always more valuable than and should not be sacrificed for any quantity of lower pleasures, no matter how great. Part B of premise 2 touches on this idea because Mill says that even if the pleasures of higher quality are attended by discomfort, they are still more worthy of pursuit.
You do a good job covering the basic premises of this conclusion. However, I think your argument could be strengthened if you elaborated on some of your points and maybe added a few extras. For example, when you say in 2b: "Some pleasures can be attended with amounts of discontent," you should further this point and discuss how the highest pleasures, or, "highest faculties," are often associated with discontent or discomfort, but those who choose those pleasures are aware of this, and deliberately do so in efforts to maintain their pride and dignity. The cost of having the higher pleasures is outweighed by the rewards of the actual pleasures themselves. Also, your argument would definitely improve if you touched upon the Greatest Happiness Principle, as it builds upon values that are universal to everyone; pleasures and pains. Therefore, we can determine that the only consistent moral principle is to seek the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In other words, seek the greatest amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain in regard to everyone who inhabits the earth, as we strive for a more ethically moral society.
ReplyDelete