Mill tells us that the idea of a priori is not the way
to understand morality. That morality is not universal, and we cannot just
expect it to happen. We must learn
and evolve, and so must our morality; thus for Mill a fixed morality which is
based on just intuition, or classical reason arguments, is not
enough:
“A test of right and wrong must be
the means, one would think, of ascertaining what is right or wrong, and not a
consequence of already having ascertained it” (Ethics,
Sturba j, 2000, p223)
Mill shows us that with reason comes the need for higher states
of happiness then the basic animalistic needs we all genetically have, such as
lust, power, and desire to obtain happiness for ourselves; that as we grow in
intellect, our means of obtaining happiness is a reasonable need to help others,
and grow as human beings together. That doing the right thing is no longer
happiness for oneself, but a greater happiness is learned, in helping others,
even if along the way it may be harder:
“A being of higher faculties
requires more to make him happy, is capable probably of more acute suffering ,
and certainly accessible to it at more points, than one of an inferior type;
but in spite of these liabilities he can never really wish to sink into what he
feels to be a lower existence.” (Ethics, Sturba j, 2000, p227)
Maria H. Morales gives us a review of Mill stressing his ideas on
a good human life. She explains the differences of classic utilitarian views and
Mill’s version, explaining as he did, that happiness comes with progressive
morality and growth. That each sex, individuals, and societies are learning and
growing, and as they do, so does their morality for the progressive person or
society:
“A progressive being is someone
with the capacity to improve-cultivate, develop, and exercise-his or her higher
faculties, namely the intellect, the emotions, the imagination, and the moral
sentiments” (Ethics, Sturba j, 2000, p261)
She describes to us the principles of Mill and shows us that his
definition of secondary principles is found wanting. She shows that Mill broke
down some of these principles as permanent interests of the progressive being.
She differs from Mill in his understanding of some of these permanent interests,
such as security, which Mill described as “the most vital”. She states this term
is not just a physical description of protection from physical harm, but an
implied protection from evil itself:
“Security has to do with protection (immunity) from evil generally, which is for human beings a ‘most
indespensible [necessary], after physical nutriment.’” (Ethics, Sturba j, 2000, p261)
She applauds Mill for his equality and sympathy which are the
vital components of justice itself, and seems to agree with most of his
work.
For me, both are correct, and blend well together. Mill and
Morales are stressing the main concept of a higher happiness for the educated
and progressing being, which I agree with. The idea that we can no longer live
simplistic lives with animalistic needs, to find true individual happiness, but
must, once learned, continue to evolve our morals and happiness by helping
others; that security and aversion of evil are of high importance to the group
and the individual. That we all most grow, live, and abide by our higher
progressive minds, and not sink back into the life of the animals, from which
we came.
to understand morality. That morality is not universal, and we cannot just
expect it to happen. We must learn
and evolve, and so must our morality; thus for Mill a fixed morality which is
based on just intuition, or classical reason arguments, is not
enough:
“A test of right and wrong must be
the means, one would think, of ascertaining what is right or wrong, and not a
consequence of already having ascertained it” (Ethics,
Sturba j, 2000, p223)
Mill shows us that with reason comes the need for higher states
of happiness then the basic animalistic needs we all genetically have, such as
lust, power, and desire to obtain happiness for ourselves; that as we grow in
intellect, our means of obtaining happiness is a reasonable need to help others,
and grow as human beings together. That doing the right thing is no longer
happiness for oneself, but a greater happiness is learned, in helping others,
even if along the way it may be harder:
“A being of higher faculties
requires more to make him happy, is capable probably of more acute suffering ,
and certainly accessible to it at more points, than one of an inferior type;
but in spite of these liabilities he can never really wish to sink into what he
feels to be a lower existence.” (Ethics, Sturba j, 2000, p227)
Maria H. Morales gives us a review of Mill stressing his ideas on
a good human life. She explains the differences of classic utilitarian views and
Mill’s version, explaining as he did, that happiness comes with progressive
morality and growth. That each sex, individuals, and societies are learning and
growing, and as they do, so does their morality for the progressive person or
society:
“A progressive being is someone
with the capacity to improve-cultivate, develop, and exercise-his or her higher
faculties, namely the intellect, the emotions, the imagination, and the moral
sentiments” (Ethics, Sturba j, 2000, p261)
She describes to us the principles of Mill and shows us that his
definition of secondary principles is found wanting. She shows that Mill broke
down some of these principles as permanent interests of the progressive being.
She differs from Mill in his understanding of some of these permanent interests,
such as security, which Mill described as “the most vital”. She states this term
is not just a physical description of protection from physical harm, but an
implied protection from evil itself:
“Security has to do with protection (immunity) from evil generally, which is for human beings a ‘most
indespensible [necessary], after physical nutriment.’” (Ethics, Sturba j, 2000, p261)
She applauds Mill for his equality and sympathy which are the
vital components of justice itself, and seems to agree with most of his
work.
For me, both are correct, and blend well together. Mill and
Morales are stressing the main concept of a higher happiness for the educated
and progressing being, which I agree with. The idea that we can no longer live
simplistic lives with animalistic needs, to find true individual happiness, but
must, once learned, continue to evolve our morals and happiness by helping
others; that security and aversion of evil are of high importance to the group
and the individual. That we all most grow, live, and abide by our higher
progressive minds, and not sink back into the life of the animals, from which
we came.