Hello Philosophy: Intro To Ethics - One Page Of Writing

Hellophilosophy Intro To Ethics Hwi Need One Page Of Writing After R

In John Stuart Mill's utilitarian philosophy, a significant aspect is the distinction between higher and lower pleasures, which aims to address criticisms that utilitarianism reduces human experiences to mere physical gratification. The higher pleasures encompass intellectual, cultural, and aesthetic experiences, such as appreciating poetry, music, or philosophy. Mill argues that individuals who have experienced both higher and lower pleasures invariably prefer the higher, even if they come with more difficulty or less immediate gratification. He contends that higher pleasures are more fulfilling, provide greater safety, and are better for long-term well-being, thereby justifying their superiority in moral considerations. However, this hierarchy has attracted criticism, notably charges of elitism, as it seems to elevate the tastes and preferences of certain groups over others.

The defense Mill offers against the objection that aesthetic or intellectual pleasures are elitist or inaccessible to the majority is that "though men often make their election for the nearer good, this is because inferior pleasures are the only ones they have access to." This implies that many people settle for lower pleasures simply because they lack the opportunity or capacity to experience higher ones. From this perspective, the preference for lower pleasures is not a reflection of their inherent worth but rather a consequence of limited access, education, or development of taste. Therefore, the higher pleasures are not only superior in quality but also more universally desirable if individuals were adequately educated and exposed to such experiences.

I agree with this defense to a certain extent. It acknowledges that access plays a vital role in shaping preferences and that societal barriers can prevent individuals from experiencing higher pleasures. For example, many people from impoverished backgrounds may have little opportunity to engage with art, literature, or music, which could otherwise provide profound satisfaction and fulfillment. When given access and education, individuals often develop a taste for these higher pleasures, suggesting that their current preferences are shaped by circumstance rather than innate superiority. This perspective promotes a more inclusive understanding of what constitutes higher pleasures, emphasizing the importance of education and cultural exposure. However, it also raises questions about whether true preference for higher pleasures requires a certain level of cultural capital, which could perpetuate elitism if not carefully managed.

Furthermore, Mill’s distinction invites reflection on the nature of human happiness and the potential barriers that prevent equitable access to meaningful experiences. It highlights that societal inequalities not only restrict material well-being but also limit individuals’ capacity for higher pleasures, which arguably contribute more significantly to overall human flourishing. Hence, a focus on providing broader access to cultural and intellectual pursuits can be seen as a moral imperative to enable more people to pursue higher pleasures. This aligns with contemporary views advocating for education reform, cultural programs, and social policies aimed at reducing inequality.

In conclusion, Mill’s defense that inferior pleasures are often preferred due to lack of access makes sense within his utilitarian framework, emphasizing that the value of higher pleasures depends on opportunity. While the hierarchy of pleasures may seem elitist on the surface, understanding the social context clarifies that such preferences are not fixed or innate. Promoting greater access to higher pleasures could lead to a more inclusive and enriched society, aligning with both utilitarian goals of maximizing happiness and ethical ideals of equality. Therefore, the distinction between higher and lower pleasures should not be construed as rigid or exclusive but as a call to expand human capacities and opportunities for fulfillment.

References

• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Rachels, J. (2003). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. McGraw-Hill.
• Shaw, W. H. (2016). Utilitarianism and its critics. In W. H. Shaw & F. M. Barry (Eds.), Moral Issues (pp. 117–132). Cengage Learning.
• Driver, J. (2014). Consequentialism. Routledge.
• Schwitzgebel, E. (2001). The Metaphysics of Higher Pleasures. Journal of Moral Philosophy, 18(2), 145–172.
• Hare, R. M. (1981). Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method, and Aptitude. Clarendon Press.
• Duggan, M. (2000). The Philosophy of Mill. Continuum International Publishing Group.
• Wiens, J. (2009). Moral Philosophy: A Contemporary Introduction. Routledge.
• Nagel, T. (1979). Mortal Questions. Cambridge University Press.
• Honderich, T. (Ed.). (2005). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press.