John Stuart Mill was a hedonist and accepted that happiness was of great importance and stressed that happiness is more important than pleasure. Mill believed that the quality of pleasure decides on whether an act is good; for example, human pleasures such as reading are what is good however animal pleasures such as eating is not as good. This meant that he felt that the quantity of pleasure did not matter, it was only the quality. Mill continues to develop his argument by saying that everyone deserves happiness so therefore, everyone aims towards their own happiness so everyone should aim for the happiness of everyone. He believed in universalizability which means what is right or wrong for one person in a situation is right or wrong for everyone.
Kant’s view uses a categorical imperative, in which ethics is based upon an absolute, objective, deontologcial theory, in which intentions are more important than consequences. Kant believed that an ethics should be based around something entirely good. He decided that the only thing entirely good in the whole universe is ‘good will’. Everybody must decide ethical decisions in a way in which they put themselves last, fulfill their duty, and commit only selfless acts. This may be psychologically impossible, as many believe there is always a selfish reason for any good deed, however Kant only proposed a theory, and
Describe and evaluate the humanistic approach in psychology The humanistic approach contrasts all the other approaches for one simple reason; this is that the humanistic approach believes that we have free will, this is because we are able to make conscious decisions for our self and chose our own path in life, and for example, the behaviourist approach is deterministic, as the environment determines our behaviour. Rogers stated that certain environments are needed in order for a child to achieve their full potential as an adult. Rogers said we need a condition consisting of positive regard. This means knowing that somebody loves you no matter what you do. He said we all need conditional positive regard from our parents, and if we did not receive this is can lead to psychological problems in our future.
These impulses are perceived as unjustified temptations in natural law because “true happiness is not found in … wellbeing … but in God alone, the source of every good and of all love” (CCC 1723). However, Aquinas recognises that fulfilling the transcendent will of God – true happiness and divine perfection - is unfeasible in the presence of earthly distractions, and thus, a human can merely approach pure goodness asymptotically by achieving
The various forms present two major problems; the problem of justice, and the issue of having to predict the consequences of an action. One variant within utilitarianism is Hedonistic or Classic utilitarianism. Which looks at the view ‘what is good for an individual is what tends to promote happiness or pleasure to the individual’. This holds that the only intrinsic good is pleasure, and that the only intrinsic bad is pain. Everything else is good only insofar as it creates pleasure, and bad only insofar as it creates pain.
Furthermore, proposed indirect taxes on luxury goods such as motor cars and petrol would have affected the Lords as they were among the few rich enough to afford such luxuries. The Lords set up a budget protest league and denounced the budget as “confiscation and robbery”, and breaking with convention overwhelmingly vetoed the budget. A less important reason was that the Lords believed the budget amounted to a social revolution. They were worried by the idea of progressive and redistributive taxation which taxes the rich more heavily. They feared once these principles were established they could be extended to ‘soak the rich’ and even out the unfair distribution of wealth in Edwardian Britain.
If the action produces happy and good consequences versus bad, then it’s the morally right action to follow. “But our calculation is not yet over, for the utilitarian principle tells us that in order for the action to be right, it must produce the greatest good for the greatest number of those affected by it.”(De George, page 47) We would need to drill down into almost every person affected by an action to completely render it morally right, the decision would need to produce the greatest amount of good. Ultimately, for Bentham there was no better man. Everyone had the opportunity in creating the greatest amount of happiness and pleasure. In his eyes, men could produce happiness for anyone involved in any
Teological theories tend to rely on principle of utility which the measure of the usefulness, or fittingness for purpose, that an action may have. Utilitarians define ‘usefulness’ as in terms of happiness for the majority of people ‘’greatest happiness for the greatest number’’ meaning like the less pain for the greatest number. Maintaining the theory is the idea of psychological hedonism which this is avoiding pain and seeking pleasure are the main motivators of human being. Then bentham went out and thought and which actions can best promote pleasure and reduce pain. He did calculated this by the hedonic calculus (purity, remoteness, richness, duration, extent, intensity, certainty) which is examining the consequences of and action and working out the pleasure and pain involved.
So Mill was all about how much quality the pleasure brings. Bentham, however believed that pleasure and happiness was measured in quantity not quality. He measure this using the hedonic calculus Jeremy Bentham created the hedonic calculus to provide and easy and clear way to identify what result would generate the most amount of pleasure and least amount of pain. The hedonic calculus measured the possible consequences of an action. Bentham was an act utilitarian; this is when each action is judged individually.
If one was to experience both an intellectual and a physical pleasure (not necessarily at the same time) eventually they are going to have a preference of one over the other. It is of no moral obligation to choose other than having a pure and strong desire to choose that one particular pleasure. But that desire and decision makes it the higher pleasure. Mill has to make that difference clear because although it is up to the one who has done both