When
I was going over the notes, I found that I might disagree with John Stuart
Mill’s clarification of the 5th misunderstanding. The person
disagreeing with Mill says most virtuous people renounced happiness. John
Stuart Mill said that that those famous, virtuous people did it to bring others
happiness. After thinking it over for a short while, I realized, in a sense,
what he was saying. I figured he was accepting the fact that these famous,
virtuous people denied happiness, but they did not. If they denied happiness, I
don't believe that they would be trying to make others happy by being a voice
for them.
For
example, if Nelson Mandela “denied” happiness, he would have accepted that the
Apartheid was just going to happen, and wouldn’t have tried to do anything
about it. He would not have strived to bring others happiness, or freedom.
Although
these people who sacrifice so much to bring others happiness get pleasure from
doing so, in the end.
I
think this goes back to the second misunderstanding of Utilitarianism discussed
in class. The person critiquing Mill’s work said that Utilitarianism is not a
good moral theory because it is demeaning to say that the meaning of life is
pleasure. Mill’s response was that there are pleasures we share but some of
those bring us a little pain. I believe that this applies to the fifth
misunderstanding. Going back the example made with Nelson Mandela, he had to go
through a lot of pain before he could bring others pleasure, and that highest
pleasure outweighs the pain he went through. He did not deserve to go through
all of those hardships, but he did anyways so that he could end the Apartheid.
In
conclusion, I agree with Mill’s points 100%. I think that they make quite a bit
of sense, and that he handled the criticism of his work very well.
No comments:
Post a Comment