Aristotle vs. Mill: Distinct Ideas of What Happiness Is

Paper 2 Aristotle vs. Mill

Happiness is a highly debated topic, and both John Stuart Mill and Aristotle have distinct ideas of what happiness is. These two men have their own, views and opinions. Aristotle and John Stuart Mill have come up with two theories on what is the good for a society. Although these men come from a different time, their theories are used from time to time. The Aristotelian and Utilitarian views are two different viewpoints, yet they continue to influence people.

Aristotle states that everything that a man does is for an end purpose. He defines happiness as actions in accordance with reason. If humans live out their lives to their full potential and live according to reason and with virtues, than they can obtain happiness. In today’s world, many think that happiness is got from money, success, and fame. Many people believe that these things are essential for happiness. Aristotle suggests, it is what we do in our life, not what we gain from our life, like money or success, which gives us happiness. He argues that happiness does not occur instantly. In our world today, we want to feel happiness instantly. However, Aristotle does not rely on this idea. He believes that happiness comes over time and the things that happen in short lived moments do not truly make us happy, but that the activities or virtues, we engage in over time give us happiness in the end. He contends that by achieving certain virtues, it leads to happiness in the long run, not in an instantaneous moment. In our society today, Aristotle’s ideas on happiness would not be useful. In Aristotle’s perfect world, everyone would be virtuous and happy. Unfortunately, that is not how our society works today. Aristotle’s ideas are inaccurate because many people gain happiness out of doing unvirtuous actions. For example, Hitler gained some sort of happiness out of murdering Jews.

In contrast to Aristotle views are John Stuart Mill’s views on happiness.
They are on the complete opposite end of the spectrum compared to Aristotle’s beliefs. Mill says that people are happiest when they do what they want, but this not necessarily good for the society as a whole. He asserts that people can do as they wish, as long as it has a positive outcome. Actions are good if it causes happiness and bad if it does not bring happiness. Mills suggests that pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things that will make us happy, and everything else is detrimental to us. The utilitarian view sounds good in theory, but would not work out in today’s society. For example, a utilitarian would not follow a law if nobody was watching. Even though this is wrong and illegal, it gives them pleasure and does not cause a negative outcome. John Stuart Mill is saying that utilitarianism is not necessarily about achieving happiness, but it is also making sure that we are not unhappy.
Both John Stuart Mill and Aristotle spent a lot of time deliberating happiness. They both agreed on one view of happiness. Both the philosophers both came upon a resolution that in order to attain true happiness, men should be engaging in activities that are distinct to humans. Happiness is our end goal in life.