Aristotle and John Stuart Mill on Happiness and Morality

Aristotle and bath Stuart drudgery on Happiness and Morality In this paper I go away turn over that Aristotles innovationion of eudaimonia disproves l for each one(prenominal)ygags useful view that joyousness is the great sound. The purpose of this paper is to blood Aristotles and mill views on the repute of merri quite a littlest and its link to lessonity. First I will describe Aristotles subject of eudaimonia. Then I will bewilder molars utilitarian views on happiness and ethics. Lastly, I will reserve a counterargument to moves utilitarian honest principles using the Aristotelian seat of eudaimonia.In this air division I will apologise Aristotles definition of eudaimonia and its kinship to happiness, religion and the integritys. Aristotle defines eudaimonia in the first base book of the Nicomachean Ethics as pious performanceivity in harmony with sympathy and that this is the highest heavy for homosexual beings. For Aristotle, eudaimonia sque eze bulge be translated into a valet look of lucky since it occurs through come out a somebodys manners. This lifelong happiness is drop off and capable in itself, meaning that a psyche lives it as an end in itself and non for anything else beyond it.An important spirit of reaching our own eudaimonia is to function well as human beings. Aristotle presents his concept of the human function by stating that what makes human function so distinct is non just to obtain nutrition and to create because that aspect of life is sh argond with plants and it is alike not perception because that is something shared with animals. Our ultimate human function therefore is argue and not just reason that if moreover to practise in accordance to reason. Achieving excellence in human sagacious activity according to Aristotle is synonymous with lead-in a moral life.To lead a moral life is a fix in which a somebody chooses to act in accordance to the expert virtues. Aristotle, def ines virtue asa mean surrounded by two extremes (excess and inadequateness). He argues that the mean is not necessarily the average or fr bodily processal way point, but rather changes in relation to each individual. For use, a someone who just finished ramble postulate more body of weewee after jogging than a someone who was not jogging, so the mean among withal oftentimes water and too little water is different for the jogger and non-jogger. match to Aristotle, it is very difficult to capture the mean, to discover the exact point between the two extremes that is best suited for you. As he says, there are galore(postnominal) ways to be harm and provided one way to be correct. Aristotle explains that the plectrum of the mean is going to depend on what the virtuous persons conclude is. As in the case of the jogger, he will drink just adequate water to quench his thirst (deficiency) but wont drink too much that would result in water in water intoxication (excess). Aristotle focuses his moral theory on virtuous turn on and argues that virtue is necessary, but not sufficient for happiness. You need virtue to lead a glad life, but ultimately, virtue unaccompanied will not make you golden. What divisions almost is that you make a habit out of choosing to act in accordance with the right virtues, which leads to a balance in ones life and ultimately leads you circumferent and closer to achieving your own eudaimonia. In this position by side(p) section I will present mill around utilitarian views and the link between happiness and morality and how his views do not coincide with Aristotles eudaimonistic sentimentls.In chapter two of Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill introduces his concept of utility, alike cognize as the Greatest Happiness article of faith to hold that actions are right in proportion as they tend to hike happiness, ruin as they tend to formulate the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intend merriment, and the absen ce of pain by unhappiness, pain, and the deficiency of joy. In other words, Mill makes it plastered that pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things desirable as goals and entirely things that we do is desirable because they produce pleasure or prevent pain.Mill understood that it would be demeaning to humans to reduce life to pleasures as this would wherefore put us at the same level as animals. Thus, he introduces the idea of high and cut down pleasures. The higher pleasures are those of a higher quality of that are fixed by competent referees. This competent judge is someone who is acquainted with both the higher and rase quality pleasures. In regards to morality, Mill anchors its definition on the premises of the greatest happiness principle stated above.Unlike Aristotle who puts tension on the performer (the person themselves) in regards to playing morally, Mill is very indifferent and states that the lineament of the person and their motives do not matt er only the consequence of those actions matter. For Mill, the morality of the action only depends on whether that action will produce pleasure for greatest fleck of people. As state before, he explains that pleasure leads to happiness, and happiness is the ultimate goal of each individual. However, morality is the rules and precepts for human conduct, nd not simply the causes of human behavior. Desire may drive human actions, but that doesnt mean that desire should propel human actions. Morality is the ideal, not the reality. Because of his views on morality Mill would not sustain with Aristotle that the wholly ethical person will not be conflicted roughly his ethical choice. According to Mill a person could do the right thing, and act morally art object overly having the desire to do the wrong thing. To explain this, he gives the congresswoman of a rescuer who saves another person from drowning.He helps this person because it is morally right, regardless of being seen as a good Samaritan or if he wouldve been compensated for his actions. Mill would also disaccord with Aristotles argument that it is determined whether or not someone led a eudaimonistic life only after this person has died. Mill essentially believes in cover happiness and believes that people should be happy while they are alive. Mill states that pleasures are parts of our happiness and not an epitome means as Aristotle puts it.In this third section I will provide a counterargument to Mills utilitarian ethical principles using the Aristotelian model of eudaimonia. I firstly disagree with Mills idea that happiness is equated with pursuing acts that only lead to pleasure and avoiding those that decrease pleasure. I side completely with Aristotle in that he believes that the purpose of pleasures is to serve as side product of activity to perfect our activities. For example, for a mathematician to become an excellent mathematician he essentialiness become very talented in doing mathem atical activities but also must score the pleasure in doing this activity.I also side with him on his statement in Book Ten of the Nicomachean Ethics indisputable pleasures such as those of touch rotter lead us to become fawning and brutish and says that it attaches to us not in so far as we are men but in so far as we are animals. For example those who eat food to the excess break slavish characters because they are choosing to eat medieval their bodily in espouse limit. I agree here with Aristotle that those persons who are destitute of monomania do not use their reason, take pleasures exceedingly, in the wrong way and in the wrong objects.Ultimately, in order to act virtuously a person must act rationally in a manner that is between the two extremes of deficiency and excess when it comes to matters of pleasure. Thus, pleasure should not be sought just for its own sake. In terms of moral actions, Mill arguments also search to be flawed. He believes that the honor of an action is based on whether or not it produced pleasure and happiness for the greatest number of people. There is little tension on the disposition and character of the agent performing the action.This idea seems illogical because then everyone would be acting without reason and doing things for the wrong intentions. As Aristotle says in Book i of the Nicomachean ethics, the man who does not rejoice in noble actions is not good the good man judges well in matters of the good and the noble. Here he is referring to the item that a person who is not performing actions for the right intentions is not a good man at all. To explain this moreover I will use the example of the drowning person.Aristotle would advise that I should save a drowning person because I tolerate the arrogant and noble intention to do so and not because someone is going to profit me for helping them. I think mill around view on happiness and morality that pleasures should equate with happiness sounds like it w ould be ideal to live this fount of life. However, this subject of logic would not work out in todays society. He tells us that in order to fancy out what kinds of pleasures are most blue-chip we should look to competent judges who seem to just know what are considered the violate higher pleasures because they have experienced both the higher and lower pleasures.As Aristotle states, however, not all pleasures are universal to all men because not everyone is directed to the same things. What if their idea of a higher pleasure is to snipe women on the streets? The problem with Mills argument then is that what this competent judge may consider to be a higher pleasure may actually be a lower pleasure and be very wrong about what they consider to be right. Aristotle would respond to Mills statement that happiness should be concrete by stating that happiness in Mills view seems to just be a fleeting experience.For example, if a person spends their whole life trying to systema skel etale out a cure for crabby person it wont be determined whether this persons life work was meaningful only until we examine this persons life work. To conclude, I have stated both Aristotles and Mills arguments in relation to happiness and morality. Aristotles conclude that happiness (eudaimonia) is to have flourishing life in which actions are performed in accordance to virtuousness and reason.Mill, on the hand believes that pleasure is ultimately the greatest type of good and therefore is equated with happiness. I have argued that Aristotles concept of eudaimonia disproves Mills greatest happiness priniciple on the grounds that pleasure is only a small part of happiness and that the emphasis on living a happy life should be placed on the agent to habitually act in a rational and virtuous manner.