Hedonism is a term which has been speculated by philosophers for a long time and has brought about diverse views from them. Hedonism can be defined as a school of thought which denotes that pleasure and happiness are the fundamental intrinsic goods and the cumulative objective of human life (Framarin 2). Ahedonist, therefore, can be understood as a person who strives to achieve optimum net pleasure which is happiness minus pain. However, when that person attains that pleasure, by extrinsic or intrinsic goods, happiness is something which remains stationary. Therefore, ethical hedonism is the ability of individuals to act or do whatever in there means to achieve the highest levels of pleasure possible to them.
Hedonism can, therefore, be termed as an extention of utilitarianism that explores more on actions which are directed on gaining maximum pleasure from one’s actions. It is a sub philosophy of utilitarianism, where it requires the utilization of pleasure and the notion that pleasure is the utmost objective of all humanity (Framarin 4). That is why hedonists hold the belief that there are only two human action motivators. These are pain and pleasure and that most of the decisions which people make are either to maximize pleasure or minimize or eliminate the aspect of pain from their lives. Therefore, this level of hedonism can be equated with the aspect of utilitarianism to bring about the essence of some of the human actions of humanity.
One of the philosophers who has acted about utilitarianism was John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), who in his publication Utilitarianism had a classical approach to the aspect of utilitarianism as a mode of philosophy. His publication was a justification of the utilitarian principle as the fundamental basis of morals. In this principle, he was convinced that actions could be termed to be right if their objective is to promote human happiness in overall (Mill 111). Therefore, there is a sense in which this philosophy of Mill, which he gave in a qualitative approach gave the groundwork for the conviction of the functionality of values of hedonism in human life.
Mill espoused that utilitarianism is an aspect which emanates from human nature and that if the society were to accommodate utilitarianism, then it would naturally set the standards which are morally binding. He argues that happiness is the sole purpose of human living and that people should do everything to attain happiness (Mill 111). This is an argument which is supported by Bentham; only he denotes that the people which pleasure affects should be of concern to those who seek to produce happiness and pleasure in the essence of its duration, intensity, and quickness. Bentham was argued that pleasure dictated all human actions and behavior. When this is scrutinized in all essence of human living, it can be deduced that pain and pleasure are not the only factors which dictate human behavior (Ferraro 12). There are other determinants in human life in actions which are not in the sense that it is not an individualistic attitude of living.
Mill supports the notion that all other objects of human desire mean either to find happiness or be included in the aspect of happiness in their lives. One of the most considerate elements of this notion of Mill is that it very elitists These are the people who have higher political and social standing in that they could seek what they consider happiness to others. It is in this sense that the poor and the less disadvantaged in the society who have not meant of finding happiness in their lives. Their lives are punctuated with strain and frustration which brings them pain and suffering in their daily lives. There is a thin line between the ability to have happiness and the perpetual cycle of seeking happiness. Without the likely means of achieving happiness, the less disadvantaged have little aspects of association to achieve happiness in their lives.
The argument by Mill does not have the necessary mechanism to protect people from abuse of individual rights. Happiness, in this case, is relative in such a manner that not all aspects of life are measured by the same standard. Happiness is a more complex subject of human living in that what makes one person happy is not what will make others happy Thus, if people were to be left to their own devices to seek what makes them happy, they will trample and infringe on the rights of other people. The reason why laws were put in place and others continue to be enacted to protect people from those people who would use their positions to seek personal happiness at the expense of other people. There is a sense in which Mill definition of utilitarianism overlooked the understanding that happiness is relative, and it differs from one person to the other.
Bentham indicated that in utilitarianism all theories of morality have assumed that all actions of morality are measured on the consequences which they must produce. Thus, it is an axiological perspective on which moral theories differ in the ways they address phenomena (Ferraro 17). Mill’s theory is grounded in the theory of life where happiness and pleasure are paramount and the freedom from pain where perfect life starts and ends with desirably (Schofield 165). It is in this aspect which the term hedonist cognates and therefore it seems possible that Mill was considering himself as a hedonist. However, the subject which Mill takes into consideration is that fact that Mill peculiarly treats utilitarianism. This is because, according to the utilitarianism of Mill, it is another version of hedonistic philosophy. When viewed from the perspective of Mill, it can be understood that he could not have a differentiated regarding morality. There is confusion in the way Mill uses the term utilitarianismbecause, in modern day world, utilitarianism is largely considered as a theory which is consequentialist on what is right (Mill and Crisp). On the other hand, hedonism is understood as the theory which refers to the aspects of what is good (Nam Kyol Heo). Mill, however, seems to consider that the two philosophical terms to be intertwined and therefore utilitarianism can be used to refer to hedonism as well.
There is a sense in which in the definition of the terms by Mill, it is noticeable that he had set the groundwork for hedonistic philosophy. In his utilitarian doctrine, Mill denotes that happiness is desirable and it is the only desirable end for an action. On the other part, he defines utilitarianism as a moral theory in that activity by humans can be termed as normal if they are to give happiness (Nam Kyol Heo 32). For Mill, determining from these definitions, it can be understood as that utilitarian are consequentialist who are convinced that pleasure from an action is an intrinsic value (Schofield 165). Even though Mill is one of the classic utilitarianism, his theory of morality is one which deviates from the other contemporary philosophers. This, therefore, informs one to question whether the devotion of Mill towards utilitarianism is more prominent as the one of Bentham.
According to Mill, the more pleasure appeals to higher faculties; the more valuable the pleasure is to the person. However, this understanding of Mill is skewed because, on ethicalterms, not all pleasures are good, and not all of them are encouraged by the society. Therefore, the term good is not enough to define the extent of pleasure or something which produces pleasure (Mill 210). Therefore, if there are some pleasures which are more valuable than others, then there must be a standard in which they can be measured. This is regarding human well-being or personal fulfillment. However, Mill’s response to this position is what put him in a hedonistic domain. He argued that desirable judgment of cultivation which is competent can determine which pleasure is more desirable than the other (Mill and Crisp).
To conclude, as, from the definition of Mill towards utilitarian philosophy, it can be noted that he set the groundwork for hedonism. His qualitative expression of what is a pleasure and happiness make Mill be a hedonist. It can be understood that even though he did not give out himself as a hedonist, but his work portrays him as being inclined towards such a philosophy. Therefore, just Bentham’s quantitative analysis, Mill gives the notion that in addition to the quantity of pleasure, quality of it should be considered as well.
Comments