Ethics

Mill's proof for his claim includes, "human nature is so constituted as to desire nothing which is not either a part of happiness or a means of happiness" (Mill 39). The last argument for proof that everyone desires includes a part that will by an end to happiness. Distinguishing will from desire is vital to the argument as they are considered two items on a different spectrum. Will, according to Mill is considered an active phenomenon and desire a state of passive sensibility (Mill 40).

Human objects such as money, power, and fame are prime examples of parts of the whole idea of happiness. It is to be understood that no matter what the feeling is rather it be pleasure, pain, or both would be needed as a means to happiness.

What Mill is trying to express are concerns from others who are opposed to Epicurus's views in regard to pleasure. He is making the point that humans are unable of reaching the highest levels of pleasure, and that swine, or less intelligent species are able to reach a higher level of pleasure than homo-sapiens. Yes, we are more complex of beings than most creatures, but our higher level of thinking does not always equate a lower level of pleasure. It is not fair to compare the two.

We are the most evolved species and our intelligence can be pleasure producing but can also cause us to feel less satisfied and content than other walks of life(Mill, 2002). Utilitarianism argues that, an act is moral if and only if it maximizes pleasure. What Mill is suggesting is that as humans we tend to know what it feels like to experience the greatest amounts of pleasures and lesser pleasures are not as valuable to human's lives(Mill, 2002). As humans, we should aim higher than just creating a pleasurable life. Mill thinks swine are only concerned with physical pleasures while the human is concerned with a much wider array of pleasures including intellectual and emotional pleasures.