ARISTOTLE AND MILL; THEIR VIEWS ON HAPPINESS

Luciano M. Silva
Philosophy 1120 403
Professor Israelsen
October 18th 2017
 1

What is happiness? How does one define happiness? Two influential

philosophers: John Stuart Mill and Aristotle, possessed very different views about the

concept of happiness. Mill had a hedonistic view, making it subjective and right if the

actions are useful for the benefit of the majority. Aristotles idea of happiness is objective

with actions having a reason and a purpose. Mills theory of happiness, with his

utilitarian background, can be viewed as selfish, cold, and manipulative, while Aristotles

perception is less egocentric and for the best good of the individual and society.

John Stuart Mill was an advocate of utilitarianism as an ethical theory. Mill

believed that moral actions are good if they are for the greater good, having the

consequences of ones actions as the basis for any judgment about what is right or wrong

for such action (consequentialism). For example: The Greatest Happiness Principle,

further explains the doctrine in which actions are right if the actions are favorable to

promote happiness and wrong if these same actions originate the opposite of happiness.

This stage of happiness is related to pleasure, non-existence of pain, consequently,

unhappiness and pain removes pleasure. Mill (1879) Pleasure, and freedom from pain,

are the only things desirable as ends.1

Mill (1879) believed that human beings have faculties more elevated than

animals appetites and when made conscious of them do not regard anything as happiness

which does not include their gratification.2 By using the Epicurean philosophy to back

up his claim, Mill supported the idea that pleasures of the feelings, intellect, and

creativeness are superior compared to simple pleasures of the flesh. These hierarchical

1. John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism (Longmans, Green, and Co., 1879), 4.

2. Mill, Utilitarianism, 5.
 2

pleasures are then put into place. Mill defined higher pleasures as the intellectual

pleasures that stem from education, arts, social relationships as qualitatively better. He

contrasted these with the lower pleasures; examples of which include food, drink and sex.

Lower pleasures are more addictive and lead to more destruction, and result in pain. In

deciding what pleasures should be more valued, Mill suggested to search out a competent

judge to help conclude which pleasures are preferable.

Mill (1879) asserted that seeking happiness is natural and added, something

might still be said for the utilitarian theory; since utility includes not solely the pursuit of

happiness but prevention or mitigation of unhappiness.3 Mill also lamented that to enjoy

life one must experience tranquility and excitement; once happiness is achieved it is

impossible to be in deep selfishness. Mill affirmed that The Golden Rule of Jesus of

Nazareth and also felt there were no reason that people should reject pleasure and

happiness.

Compared to Mills view, Aristotles concept of happiness is objective. Aristotle

believed all actions seek something and people do things for a reason, all actions being

purposive, and the end result of this is happiness, or the best good. What is the point of

ones life? What are the reasons for people becoming engaged in their pursuits? In

Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle wrote: Happiness, then, is something final and self-

sufficient and is the end of action.4 An example of this can be if an individual wants to

become a teacher. The end of action would be the eventual accumulation and process of

gaining new knowledge and skills being shared with students who are eager to learn and

3. Mill, Utilitarianism, 8.

4. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, trans. W. D. Ross (Provided by The Internet

Classics Archive, 350 B.C.E.), Book 1.7.
 3

grow. The process of learning can be long with levels of acceptance, relearning, mastery

and enlightenment, while achieving happiness in the process which Aristotle described

as the highest end.

Aristotle thought every living thing has a soul and human beings are rational

souls, having the capacity of thinking and making choices and claimed that every element

has a function or activity in life. The human function is the activity of the soul within

reason. A good life for a human being is rational Since happiness is an activity of soul in

accordance with perfect virtue, we must consider the nature of virtue.5 One could

believe that Aristotle did not think that by nature a human being is bad or good, yet one is

good or bad by decisions made, and virtue is like learning a musical instrument, as one

practices the better one becomes towards reaching their highest and happier self. It is

often said that Aristotle is a balanced thinker. Balance plays a big part in the ability to be

happy. A balanced life requires physical health, mental acuity and virtuous living all

working together in a homeostasis condition.

Aristotle stated that there are three classes of goods: good of the body, external

goods and goods of the soul. Good of the body are creature comforts such as food, drink,

shelter, sex, and procreation. The external goods are friends one makes throughout living,

political systems, sports, studying. The good of the soul are specific characteristics of

human beings. The highest goods, once they are linked to virtues of forgiveness, praise

and kindness, are influences that are considered towards understanding how one lives

their life.

5. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book 1.13

 4

Mills theory has received criticism often making life appear shallow and

animalistic and pleasure comes across as being the sole end of life. Many find it

uncomfortable, as pleasure-seeking behavior can appear selfish and unempathetic

towards others. The availability of education is a weakness in Mills theory and he

believed there was no reason why people could not receive adequate education to find life

enjoyable. Mills upper class lifestyle had little comprehension for the worldwide

availability and access of education to the underrepresented and minority groups based on

religion, race, class and gender globally.

In Bernard Williams A Critique of Utilitarianism references how Mills theory

can be amoral, unsympathetic and cold. Shocking the reader with such vivid examples of

selfish behavior, Mills theory offers a psychological predicament for the reader.

Williams continued with two great examples of moral dilemma: 1) relates to a chemist

who must forsake their belief in chemical and biological warfare to support and keep

alive their family and 2) the story forces an innocent traveler to pick one man out of

twenty and kill him to save the lives of nineteen others. Both experiences illustrate the

weakness and ethical dilemmas in Mills belief of the means one may be forced to endure

for The Greatest Happiness Principle such as integrity, moral principles and

psychological effects, which are not taken into full consideration.6

Ursula K. Le Guin, an American writer, offered a critique to Mills theory titled

The Ones Who Walked Away From Omelas. Omelas is a utopia and this story was

written to present a criticism of utilitarianism. This town is a happy place; nonetheless,

there is a high price that must be paid for this towns happiness. In Le Guins story, the

6. Bernard Williams, A Critique of Utilitarianism in J.J.C. Smart and Bernard

Williams Utilitarianism: For and Against (Cambridge University Press, 1973), 96-116.
 5

author describes the basement of a beautiful public building of Omelas, in a very small,

darkened room, with a child present. It could be a boy or a girl about six years old. This

child could be born with a defective, or became imbecile through fear, malnutrition, and

neglect. And the happiness of people from Omelas was dependent on the misery of this

child. The Omelas people all know about this child, and also know that the beauty of their

city, the tenderness of their friendships, even the abundance of their harvest and the

kindly weathers of their skies, depend wholly on this child. This critique to utilitarianism

makes reference to the coldness/individuality objection to this moral theory, which

presents people as calculated, putting emphasis on actions not on the character.7

Aristotle provided us with a different view of happiness and how one can acquire

it. Aristotle presents one with tools needed to maintain a balance for oneself that one then

passes on to others. Aristotle was less into instant gratification, selfishness, shame, fame

or fortune, and more interested in betterment of oneself that results in an enriched society.

When one is happy, balanced, virtuous and healthy, then that individual can make

decisions that are for the better good. Negative occurrences in life can occur and

examples of these are poor health, loss of jobs, death, yet one is more able to handle and

adjust to the stressors that are experienced. Aristotle encouraged the practice of virtuous

living, which enriches the goodness of ones soul and creates happiness unlikely to be

diminished by adversity that will arise.

In the process of reaching happiness, one must pose a few questions. If the goal of

life is to be happy, to live a happy life, how does one accomplish it? Which theory works

best for society? Mills theory of happiness is cold and manipulative, with a utilitarian

7. Ursula K. Le Guin, The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas in The Winds
Twelve Quarters (Harper Perennial, 2004), 276-284.
 6

background, and is perceived through the lens of selfishness, while Aristotles perception

is not centered in egocentrism and is for the best good of the individual and society. In

contemporary times, selfishness and excess seem to exhibit themselves in society in

general pointing to Mills ethical theory as the guide for happiness; however, can selfish

behavior ever be satiated? If never satisfied how does one become content or happy?

Aristotles view for the best good offers a more peaceful and hopeful outlook for self-

contentment. Happiness through actions and the daily practice of virtuous living result in

a tranquility that is contagious. This provides one with the power to face lifes obstacles

with an optimistic attitude and the ability to confront any barrier with the realization of

the power of happiness as a goal and intentional outcome.

 7

Bibliography

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics Book I, Translated by W.D. Ross. Provided by The

Internet Classics Archive. 350 B.C.E.

Le Guin, Ursula K. The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas in The Winds Twelve
Quarters. Harper Perennial, 2004.

Mill, John Stuart Utilitarianism. Longmans, Green, and Co., 1879.

Williams, Bernard A Critique of Utilitarianism in J.J.C. Smart and Bernard Williams

Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge University Press, 1973.