Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Kant is one of the very few that attempted to divorce happiness from morality; even though lying to the mass murderer would save many lives, Kant believed that lying was wrong, and therefore one could not lie even in such a situation and remain moral. Unhappy or dead, yes, but definitely not moral.
Both men attempt to justify their ethical systems, not surprisingly, with completey contradictory suppositions. Kant supposes that there is such a thing as universal morality, which can be recognized by all and therefore adhered to in all situations. Mill believed that no such universal morality existed, but rather that society was based on a general consensus of treating everyone with mutual respect and liberty, creating a situation where most people could and would be mostly happy. He realized that what defined happiness and what was deemed permissible would change over time, and utilitarianism accounts for this in a way that Kant's theory does not, allowing for modification as people's definitions of usefulness -- and happiness...
People of different cultures have different systems of morality, and different ways of judging the correctness of an action. Not all of these systems are based on anything like utilitarianism, of course, but this ethical system allows for a more diverse culture to exist in the first place, whereas the moral absolutism theorized by Kant leaves no room for any outside opinions or adjustment -- an act is either moral or it is not, regardless of perspective or belief. Though Kant most likely did not mean his theory to be taken in such an intolerant way (and in the 1700s he could hardly be blamed for a very Eurocentric attitude), it simply does not serve the time we live in very well at all. The guiding principle of Mill's philosophy is "live and let live." This is the best way to make (almost) everyone happy, and is the most all-encompassing yet still rigid ethical system around.
Happiness is perhaps the most illusive, but most sought after mental state in life. Like all human experiences, happiness is also a very subjective state; different things make different people happy. This is why it is so difficult to say what happiness is, and why there has been so much disagreement among philosophers, who have nonetheless not been deterred from attempting to describe this elusive emotion. Both Plato and Aristotle
Kahneman & Schwarz (2009) confirm that the link between advanced income and happiness is fantasy. The two researchers further ascertained that inheriting a lot of money or earning as anticipated does not make one happy. This is because once one is in possession of huge sum of money; one does not necessarily spend it to make him/her happy. The third hypothesis point out that education and income increases the level
Nature tells us the biologically we are seeking that endorphin rush from these particular acts, and others. But happiness is more than pleasure, is it not? Perhaps what we call happiness is a learned behavior; a nurturing condition brought about by cultural and observational learning from the social orders. You will be happy if you get the right job, the right mate, the right house and car. It is
Happiness -- its true value and the right means of achieving it -- has been pondered by many people including Plato and Socrates, Stoics, church fathers and Aristotelians. Philosophers have had different arguments including that happiness is a matter of: faith, passion, reason, pleasure and/or contentment, mind and/or body. Some of them have also argued that happiness is a way of being or feeling. Who is happy? Who are the people who
According to utilitarian ethical theory, a lie would be very moral indeed if it increased someone's happiness without creating detriment to anyone -- telling a child that their unintelligible crayon markings is a great picture of a house, for instance, boosts their self-esteem and helps them to feel loved, and no one in the art world suffers for this white lie. Utilitarianism also provides a solution to conflicting duties that
Happiness" and "The Experience Machine" Harvard philosopher Rober Nozick made an interesting observation about happiness. Suppose one was to reflect on two different lives that contain the same amount of happiness. One life begins at a low point, and continues to get better with each passing moment. On the other hand, the second life begins on a high note, and continues to move downward towards an unhappy ending. The eternal