Essay Example on Mill's Argument on Happiness at the Root of Morality

Introduction

Happiness is the root cause of morality, and people always have a constant desire for happiness. Mill supported his argument on morality and happiness by arguing that all objects revolving around an individual are included in the happiness definition or are meant to achieving happiness. Considering an in-depth analysis of justice sentiment supports Mill's claim as efforts toward creating happiness for humans. Human rights exist only to make people happy. The paper focuses on analyzing the happiness concept from Mill's perspective to come up with ethical conclusions in different application areas.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The Meaning of Happiness According to Mill

John Stuart Mill's essay on Utilitarianism is written to offers support on Utilitarianism being a moral theory as well as responding to the existing misinterpretation about it. Mill's definition of Utilitarianism is based on the Principle stating, "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." According to Mill, happiness refers to the absence of pain and pleasure. Depending on the dimensions of happiness, there are varying states of pleasure in both quantity and quality. Mill's Principle supports that pleasures are based on an individual's higher faculties and, therefore, should be weighed on a greater scale than baser pleasure. His statement on happiness also accounts for recognition of other people's achievements in terms of ends and goals, especially virtuous living aspects as happiness composition. Aspects such as natural sentiments coincide with Utilitarianism originating from a person's nature. Consequently, it is a case where a given society wishes to embrace ethics tied to Utilitarianism; people within the society should play a role in internalizing the set standards in a good binding.

Example of Mill's Happiness meaning

A good example of representing Mill's case is considering the current state within Companies. Most companies have adopted an informal or formal ethics code, which is defined by organizational regional laws, values, and culture. Currently, having a formal code of ethics within a corporate is essential. To achieve a market breakthrough, every company must ensure a good reputation of being socially responsible alongside increasing its bottom line. Companies must, therefore, put efforts to maintain their reputation by formalizing the set ethics to gain profit.

On the other hand, consumers are only interested in companies that can be readily trusted. Employees are likely to work better in companies that have an existing code of ethics. Every individual's happiness increases concerning the morally correct decision made by an individual entity within the organization. If an individual decides to make a morally wrong decision in a company regardless of being legal, the entire team's happiness will decrease.

Happiness and Other Goals

The life purpose of an individual is not built on being happy. It is rather built on being compassionate, honorable, and being useful. Therefore, happiness is not the only goal in human life. There are other goals, such as getting famous, being loved, gaining knowledge, and getting money. Considering such aspects of life, happiness can be considered as the product of being usefulness. Happiness is only achieved when an individual achieves the set goal. If an individual has not attained certain goals in life, they are likely to have decreased happiness. Pleasures have different degrees in terms of quality and quantity; human always tends to be contended by the certain delusion of what they can achieve at a certain period. According to Mill's argument, any factor contributing to the achievement of goals for a given person accounts for their happiness. Therefore, factors such as the need for fame, money, knowledge, and other related aspect constituting the individual's goal's achievement are collectively assumed to be sources of happiness, according to Mill.

Kant's First and Second Categorical Imperatives Give Examples

Kant's first categorical imperative is the 'formula of the law of Nature.' It states that one should act as if their actions maxim were to be taken willingly like a universal law of nature. It can be portrayed as the original statement that Kant made as a categorical imperative. However, there exists a distinguishing aspect since we have to consider if our maxim would be capable of performing as a law of nature. Furthermore, our maxim should be free from contradiction. The first categorical imperative requires us to look out for contradiction on a broad universalized maxim.

An example of the first categorical imperative used to represent moral duties is borrowing money from a lender while promising to return it even though I understand that I won't do it. In this example, the intended maxim is borrowing money whenever I am short of it, promising to pay back at a later date, even though I have never fulfilled it. Since the imperative requires checking for maxim's contradiction universally, the entire system of making promises would be undermined. It is because, while, on the one hand, I make promises of returning the money, viewing from a universalized perceptive, on the other hand, would lead to making the promises to be nonexistent.

The second categorical imperative s the 'Formula of the End in itself.' It requires one to act in a way that they observe humanity while putting themselves on another person's shoes or acting on their own. The key point in this categorical imperative is that humanity should be observed to the end regardless of the situation. The categorical imperative emphasizes that people should not be viewed as objects; rather, we should recognize everyone's value and dignity. The imperative is oriented to distinguishing things that have an inherent value from those having instrumental value.

An example of the second categorical imperative would be taking different objects that are valuable to us. An example is my car keys. They are valuable to me as tools that accomplish the task of igniting my car. Both the car and the car key have instrumental value. However, the enjoyment of good music and companionship are good examples of aspects with inherent value.

Would Killing An 8-Year-Old Child Be Morally Acceptable?

Kant would not agree. It is because, based on his second categorical imperative, people should not be viewed as objects of service. Therefore, according to Kant, no one should be sacrificed. However, Mill would agree that killing the child is morally acceptable. For the happiness of the many, sacrificing one would be considerable. I agree that killing the child would be morally acceptable. It is because, according to Mill's theory, it is better to extend happiness to all people.

Which Theory Seems Better?

Mill's theory seems better than Kant's. According to Kant's theory, one can still be morally upright, even if they are selfish. Kant tries to bring the aspect of recognizing humanity to the end according to his second categorical imperative; 'Formula of the End in itself.' Mills' theory requires that everyone experiences and extends happiness to others. Even though the second categorical imperative in Kant's theory illustrates that people should not be viewed as objects, the aspect of selfishness is advocated in Kant's theory. Therefore, mills theory is better.

Kant's First and Second Categorical Imperatives Give Examples

Kant's first categorical imperative is the 'formula of the law of Nature.' It states that one should act as if their actions maxim were to be taken willingly like a universal law of nature. It can be portrayed as the original statement that Kant made as a categorical imperative. However, there exists a distinguishing aspect since we have to consider if our maxim would be capable of performing as a law of nature. Furthermore, our maxim should be free from contradiction. The first categorical imperative requires us to look out for contradiction on a broad universalized maxim.

An example of the first categorical imperative used to represent moral duties is borrowing money from a lender while promising to return it even though I understand that I won't do it. In this example, the intended maxim is borrowing money whenever I am short of it, promising to pay back at a later date, even though I have never fulfilled it. Since the imperative requires checking for maxim's contradiction universally, the entire system of making promises would be undermined. It is because, while, on the one hand, I make promises of returning the money, viewing from a universalized perceptive, on the other hand, would lead to making the promises to be nonexistent.

The second categorical imperative s the 'Formula of the End in itself.' It requires one to act in a way that they observe humanity while putting themselves on another person's shoes or acting on their own. The key point in this categorical imperative is that humanity should be observed to the end regardless of the situation. The categorical imperative emphasizes that people should not be viewed as objects; rather, we should recognize everyone's value and dignity. The imperative is oriented to distinguishing things that have inherent value from those having instrumental value.

An example of the second categorical imperative would be taking different objects that are valuable to us. An example is my car keys. They are valuable to me as tools that accomplish the task of igniting my car. Both the car and the car key have instrumental value. However, the enjoyment of good music and companionship are good examples of aspects with inherent value.

Would Killing An 8-Year-Old Child Be Morally Acceptable?

Kant would not agree. It is because, based on his second categorical imperative, people should not be viewed as objects of service. Therefore, according to Kant, no one should be sacrificed. However, Mill would agree that killing the child is morally acceptable. For the happiness of the many, sacrificing one would be considerable. I agree that killing the child would be morally acceptable. It is because, according to Mill's theory, it is better to extend happiness to all people.

Mill's theory seems better than Kant's. According to Kant's theory, one can still be morally upright, even if they are selfish. Kant tries to bring the aspect of recognizing humanity to the end according to his second categorical imperative; 'Formula of the End in itself.' Mills' theory requires that everyone experiences and extends happiness to others. Even though the second categorical imperative in Kant's theory illustrates that people should not be viewed as objects, the aspect of selfishness is advocated in Kant's theory. Therefore, mills theory is better.