NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... we understand why it can be taken as morality basis. Try to imagine the situations in which everyone takes what they want. It means that somebody will get everything and somebody nothing and in such situation the main idea happiness for all become ridiculous. As Julie Lund Hughes states Thus, if morality is defined in terms of happiness, not everyone can be moral, which seems wrong. This problem arises whenever one seeks to define morality in terms of happiness.
The fact that not everyone could be moral if not everyone could be happy follows from the contrapositive of the conditional statement, If you are moral, you are happy, which is what happiness-based moral systems like Eudaimonism profess. (The Role of Happiness in Kant's Ethics) If we will observe Kant's works very carefully we can find out more reasons of why morality can be based on happiness. People do not know what exactly can make them happy. Of course all of us have some dreams and thoughts about what thing can bring happiness but who knows for certain? Kant gives the example of someone who seeks after riches because he thinks it will make him happy, only to find that his pursuit actually results in unhappiness, because of the anxiety, envy, and intrigue that come with it. (The Role of Happiness in Kant's Ethics) Kant's idea of happiness doesnt include utilitarians universality, necessity, and harmony. He doesnt give much reason to principle of general happiness. Instead Kant states that ethics must be bases on the moral law which holds good for everyone having reason and will.
In all his statements Kant is very categorical and non-technical. He states that private happiness is the direct opposite of morality. He was deeply convinced that happiness can be achieved only through the satisfaction of all our desires. He even divides the desires into the three groups: extensive, in regard to their multiplicity; intensive, in regard to their degree; pro tensive, in regard to their duration. In other words, if you want happiness, then come and take it. Very pragmatic point of view as it is.
We can be happy only if we are worth of happiness. The man who conducts himself in a manner not unworthy of happiness, must be able to hope for the possession of happiness... a disposition which should require the prospect of happiness as its necessary condition, would not be moral, and hence also would not be worthy of complete happiness. The moral law commands the performance of duty unconditionally. Happiness should be a consequence, but it cannot be a condition, of moral action (A Symposium on The Great Idea of Happiness) As we see Kant's ideas of happiness are directly opposite to the Aristotle's ideas.
Kant thought that moral of ones own happiness is false. He also declined the statement that dong a right thing will bring more happiness. Every admixture of incentives taken from ones own happiness is a hindrance to providing the moral law with influence on the human heart. Thus, seeking happiness often prevents morality.
On the other hand, one can be moral without being happy, since one cannot count on other people to be moral, nor can one count on nature bringing good fortune. The third and most important reason the principle of happiness is false is that it bases morality on incentives that undermine [morality] and destroy all its sublimity. (The Role of Happiness in Kant's Ethics) In other words according to the Kant's ethic happiness can be used only for pleasure. We faced the conflict between ethics of duty and an ethics of happiness, as well as the conflict between law and desire as sources of morality. According to Julie Lund Hughes Kant believes that autonomy of the will is the sole and supreme principle of morality. Through his analysis, Kant shows that the moral principle must be a categorical imperative, which commands neither more nor less than just this autonomy. (The Role of Happiness in Kant's Ethics) Kant states that happiness can be formulated as a definite conception. The man only does only what he wants to and he doesnt know will it brings him happiness.
And if we start to explain all our deeds as way to happiness then how many versions of it will appear? Julie Lund Hughes states Consequently, heteronomy of the will in all its forms is the source of all spurious principles of morality. Heteronomy results when a will determines itself by any law other than the categorical imperative, usually by choosing an object, such as happiness, by which to determine itself. This relation of object to will allows only hypothetical imperatives: I ought to do something because I will something else. Contrary to this, the categorical imperative states, I ought to act in such or such a way even though I have not willed anything else. The doctrine of happiness leads to heteronomy of the will because the will is determined not by the categorical imperative, but rather by its quest for happiness.
Since the sole principle of morality is autonomy and not heteronomy, happiness cannot be the principle of morality. (The Role of Happiness in Kant's Ethics) I think that I examine the main concepts of Kant's point of view about happiness and can move on to the next part of this essay. Of course Kant's ideas are very interesting and exciting. And one can talk and argue about them endlessly but I think that they are too distant from reality. As the Aristotle's ideas was too much Utopian, Kant's ideas are too much pragmatic.
One may object to Kant's moral philosophy on the grounds that it ignores human desire. Many philosophers, including Hume and Hobbes, stipulated that human actions are driven mainly, if not solely, by their desires. Kant's morality, however, requires that humans be able to follow duty independent of desire, or else no one could be moral. Kant states that it is impossible to prove we are free, because freedom does not belong to the world of experience. Although we cannot prove that we are actually free, humans must believe that they are free in order for them to act at all. This belief in freedom and responsibility causes one to act according to duty, and not according to desires. (Kant and Mill on Morality) Ive already mentioned the term Utilitarianism and as it is tightly connected with Mills ideas of happiness which I want to discuss I will give a short definition to it.
This word appear at first in 1863 as the title of a book by John Stuart Mill but he did not invent it, just adopted it from a passing expression in Mr. Galt's Annals of the Parish. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory (with classical antecedents) developed in the modern period by Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806 - 73) to promote fairness in British legislation during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when the interests of the upper classes tended to prevail and the sufferings of the lower classes were neglected. Bentham and Mill extended consideration to all persons -- indeed, to all sentient beings potentially affected by a given action. "Each to count for one and none for more than one. " (UTILITARIANISM) In other words Mills consequential ist theory of morality is something between Utopians Aristotle ideas and pragmatic Kant's ideas. If we consider "Act utilitarianism and "Rule utilitarianism" we can see that "Rule utilitarianism" has some recognizable principles of morality.
In spite of Act utilitarianism where only consequences of individual act are calculating, "Rule utilitarianism" use rules which are very familiar to us (do not kill, steal, commit adultery, tell a lie, etc). But they are not taken as absolutes. Mills used moral rules for justice but he also considered that sometimes it is useful for justice to violate the rules. In other words he states that in some cases social utilities can replace justice. So how the utilitarianism is connected to happiness?
Mills defines his main idea of happiness as The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure. (Utilitarianism, chp 2). As a conclusion I want to say that all of aforementioned points of views on happiness has some veracity. But as for me, Mills has more sense than others.
Maybe some desires can lead to happiness. But there is no need to turn their fulfilment into fanaticism. Bibliography Mortimer J. Adler, Ph. D. , Aristotle's Ethic: The Theory of Happiness II, < web > Aristotle, Nicomachea n Ethics Books I, II, III & V, < web > Julie Lund Hughes, Brigham Young University, The Role of Happiness in Kant's Ethics, < web > Immanuel, Kant, The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant: Practical Philosophy, trans.
and ed. Mary J. Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 240. Andrea Meibos, Phil 202 H Section 200, Prof. Arts, Kant and Mill on Morality, December 10, 1998. < web > John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, Copyright Monarch Notes, 1 Jan 1963. < web > UTILITARIANISM, < web >
Free research essays on topics related to: point of view, immanuel kant, categorical imperative, rule utilitarianism, john stuart mill
Research essay sample on John Stuart Mill Point Of View
