Utilitarianism and Aristotelian Ethics
Utilitarianism and Aristotelian Ethics John Stuart Mill and Aristotle are two of the most notable philosophers in history to date. Between Mill’s Utilitarianism and Aristotle’s virtue ethics you can see a large portion our cultures ethics today. Their philosophies are apparent in contemporary everyday life. Aristotle has written several pieces on virtue and friendship. The two most notable works being the Magna Moralia and the Eudemian Ethics. However, his Nicomachean Ethics were by far the most notable thing written from Aristotle’s teachings. His Nicomachean Ethics are made up of ten books, which are a combination of Aristotle’s lecture notes and his students’ notes from the Lyceum. Mill has written a number of works also, although they tend to not be as recognizable to the common people because they are philosophical economy based. Additionally, I must define the term “self” as I intend it. When I say “self” I mean a fully autonomous human being. In short, the content of this paper will be examining the notion of the “self,” both as it relates to itself and as it relates to others. In order to determine what happiness is in term of the “self, ” first take a look at some of Mill’s utilitarian ideas. Mill’s define Utilitarianism as
“… the creed which accepts as the foundations 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.”
From the utilitarian perspective pleasure and pain are absolutely essential in finding out one’s happiness. They way which Mill’s presents this highly simplistic definition of the complicated utilitarianism, brings up only a number of questions. There is something to this basic definition, but what? Do all pleasures lead to happiness? Are some pleasures better than others? Does
“… the creed which accepts as the foundations 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.”
From the utilitarian perspective pleasure and pain are absolutely essential in finding out one’s happiness. They way which Mill’s presents this highly simplistic definition of the complicated utilitarianism, brings up only a number of questions. There is something to this basic definition, but what? Do all pleasures lead to happiness? Are some pleasures better than others? Does
Cited: 1. Aristotle. "Virtue Ethics." Moral Philosophy. Indianapolis: Hackett Company, 1998. 249-259. 2. Glassen, P. "A Fallacy in Aristotle 's Argument About the Good." The Philosophical Quarterly 7 (1957): 320. 27 Apr. 2008 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2217295>. 3. Kraut, Richard. "Aristotle 's Ethics." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 17 July 2007. Stanford University. 27 Apr. 2008 <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/>. 4. Mill, John Stuart. "Utilitarianism." Moral Philosophy. Indianapolis: Hackett Company, 1998. 5. Mulgan, R.G., Aristotle’s Political Theory (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), p.14 6. O 'Leary, Scott. "Benthem Reading." Email to the author. Reread -26 Apr. 2008. 7. O 'Leary, Scott. Lecture. Class Notes. Fordham University, Bronx, NY. 8. Thunder, David. "Friendship in Aristotle 's Nicomachean Ethics." 1996. Notre Dame University. 27 Apr. 2008 http://www.nd.edu/~dthunder/Articles/Article4.html telian