John Stuart Mill s Utilitarianism - 1642 Words

Happiness in terms of logic is considered to be a vague expression, meaning it has a wide range of interpretations, as well as having no clear meaning. John Stuart Mill, an English philosopher, based his controversial sentiments of happiness on Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism, believing that goods are the means to greatest happiness for the greatest number of peoples. Epicurus, an Ancient Greek philosopher, who similarly encouraged people to follow his pleasure based philosophy to obtain happiness. Unlike Mill, Epicurus’ philosophy is based on individualistic hedonism, which often may seem more practical and acceptable. Although, Mill’s utilitarianism is indeed a form of social hedonism rather than individual pleasure-seeking, the†¦show more content†¦However, unlike Jeremy Bentham, the father of utilitarianism, Mill was able to clarify misinterpretations and controversies by additionally incorporating his own social, political and moral theories that se emed fit with the philosophy. Epicureanism belongs in the same hedonistic category as Mill’s utilitarianism, but unlike utilitarianism, Epicurean principles are not commonly used in American government and politics. From afar, Epicureanism may seem the most practical and relatable because one may look and assume that it is simply about indulging in pleasures as long as it makes you happy. However, that is a naive interpretation, as Epicureanism promotes pleasure, but only the natural and necessary ones. Along with only following the natural and necessary pleasures, it also highlights the importance of suppressing desires that cause one to long for pleasures that aren’t necessary. In Epicurus’ â€Å"Principal Doctrines,† he writes, â€Å"on a basis of power sufficient to afford supports and of material prosperity arises in most genuine form the security of a private life withdrawn from the multitude†(2), meaning that wealth should not be a good that contributes to happiness. This may be relatable and useful for certain individuals who devalue material goods, however, this would not be plausible for the American