Philosophers Aristotle And John Stuart Mill's Definition Of Happiness
To be happy, what does that truly mean?
Philosophers Aristotle and John Stuart Mill both had similar definitions of happiness, however, they each had different ideas and theories on what it is that constitutes happiness and what being truly happy requires. Both shared a common idea, that happiness is achieved by engaging in activities that are distinctively human.
Mill’s idea of happiness is described as the end to which all things good for a human life should lead. There has been objection to this theory, as it places human beings and animals on the same level. According to Mill, the purpose in life is to attain pleasure, and any other reason or objection is "a doctrine worthy only of swine..."(Mill, Utilitarianism). To justify, Mill has written that "human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites, and when once made conscious of them, do not regard anything as happiness which does not include their gratification." (Mill, Utilitarianism). The practice of higher faculties is distinctively human, and is …show more content…
Just as every object does, like a plate or a clock. For humans, accoring to Aristotle, that function is rational activity. The function of the human is the expression of reason. Aristotle mentions, "We take the human function to be a certain kind of life, and take this life to be activity and actions of the soul that involve reason; hence the function of the excellent man is to do this well and finely."(Aristotle). Living ones life in happiness, one filled with human flourishing, is achieved by living with virtues. A virtue is a mean between two extremes, and is an intermediate state. Let’s take bravery, for example. It itself is a virtue, it is the intermediate state between being rash and fearless, and a coward. By living ones life abiding with virtues, rationality is supposed to be increased and maximized, because rationality cannot be hidden by two extremes, instead, it is free to function in the most normal
Philosophers Aristotle and John Stuart Mill both had similar definitions of happiness, however, they each had different ideas and theories on what it is that constitutes happiness and what being truly happy requires. Both shared a common idea, that happiness is achieved by engaging in activities that are distinctively human.
Mill’s idea of happiness is described as the end to which all things good for a human life should lead. There has been objection to this theory, as it places human beings and animals on the same level. According to Mill, the purpose in life is to attain pleasure, and any other reason or objection is "a doctrine worthy only of swine..."(Mill, Utilitarianism). To justify, Mill has written that "human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites, and when once made conscious of them, do not regard anything as happiness which does not include their gratification." (Mill, Utilitarianism). The practice of higher faculties is distinctively human, and is …show more content…
Just as every object does, like a plate or a clock. For humans, accoring to Aristotle, that function is rational activity. The function of the human is the expression of reason. Aristotle mentions, "We take the human function to be a certain kind of life, and take this life to be activity and actions of the soul that involve reason; hence the function of the excellent man is to do this well and finely."(Aristotle). Living ones life in happiness, one filled with human flourishing, is achieved by living with virtues. A virtue is a mean between two extremes, and is an intermediate state. Let’s take bravery, for example. It itself is a virtue, it is the intermediate state between being rash and fearless, and a coward. By living ones life abiding with virtues, rationality is supposed to be increased and maximized, because rationality cannot be hidden by two extremes, instead, it is free to function in the most normal