Happiness: John Stuart Mill vs Immanuel Kant :: Utilitarianism Essays

Happiness. People go to any means by which to obtain the many varied materials and issuesthat incline pleasures in each individual, and intrinsic all toldy, this emotionremains the ultimate goal, John Stuart Mill, a nineteenth century philosopher,correctly advocated the pursuit of happiness, and maintained the concept thatabove all other values, pleasure existed as the final destination, Millshedonistic views correctly and rationally identified a natural human tendency,and his Utilitarian arguments strongly support the surmisal that above all else,happiness is the most important dream to be fulfilled. Upon researching forthis paper, I came across a counter argument, which was based on metaphysics.Immanuel Kant, in home of the Metaphysics of Morals, defends his strongbeliefs in the issue of a good will, and surfaces as MMs oral sex opp iodinent on thetopic of metaphysics, The issue diminishes to a clash between emotions andpleasures ve rses reasonableness and logic. Yet, what use is logic when the goodagent is miserable? Mills stance within Utilitarianism exists as the morefavorable of the two beliefs, for happiness exist as the one intrinsicallyfavorable element, non an emotionless mind.The main defender of the Utilitarian system exists within the Greatesthappiness Principle. Mill lived as a chief advocate of this concept, whichsupports the idea that a decision is morally correct as long as it increases andencourages pleasures and happiness. Kant, however, in his endless quest toremain separate from emotions and flourish only on logic, would argue thatautonomy should be placed above happiness in a list of intrinsic values. A goodwill, however, does not comfort an individual in any way if happiness does notaccompany this asset, Con locatingr this example of a seemingly happily marriedcouple. The married woman in this duo is madly in love with her husband fiercely loyal,and completely happy with her marriage and children. The husband, however, aswrongfully strayed, and had a brief, but detrimental affair behind his wifes back.Kant would argue that autonomy reigns over pleasure, and the woman shouldtherefore want to be informed of her husbands adultery, Mill would greatlydisagree. By revealing the sequestered of the past affair, the womans happy worldwould be instantly shattered. Her pride would diminish, her stability wouldfall apart, and the children especially would be forced to view a nasty side oftheir beloved father. In this case, individual control is greatly overshadowedby the need for happiness. The husband is no longer acting unfaithful and thefamily can easily retain to live in a happy realm, If the secret were to