Some people have objected that many who are able to achieve higher pleasures, intermittently, under the influence of enticement, defer them to the lower. The utilitarian’s argue that men often, make their selection for the nearer good, despite the fact that they know it to be the less valuable. They chase sensual pleasures to the injury of health, though entirely conscious of the fact that health is the greater good. Another group of objectors say that happiness, in any form, cannot be the realistic rationale of human life and action; because they believe it is unattainable.
This is further supported by the rationale that if all human beings had no happiness, it cannot be the end of morality, or of any rational conduct. This is however a wrong inference because utility does not exclusively include the pursuit of happiness, but also the prevention of unhappiness. In my view, the utilitarian philosophy has the best argument. The qualitative separation of pleasures makes much more sense than as opposed to one of his influencers who treats all forms of happiness as equal (Mill and Bentham, 2004) This belief was cleverly summarized in the statement that "it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples