Reflection on Mill
“I asked you to think about Mill’s position that some pleasures – the “higher” pleasures – are intrinsically better than others – the “lower” ones.”
Mill defines higher and lower pleasures simply as the ones which humans uniquely possess, and those that all animals possess. I can agree that a certain individuality and therefore increased worth can be found in the “higher pleasures” but then again I am not willing to say that there is a definite division of worth between the lower and the higher. Are not some of the “lower pleasures” what make us human, I assume Mill would say the opposite and say that they only define us as animals, but if the lower pleasures are what first define us and the higher pleasures only distinguish are they not both independently important to what we are as human beings?
I agree in the sense that both types of pleasures can define humans. The worth may not be different between “higher and lower” pleasures but the “higher” ones are unique which is the reason some people may say it is “worth” more. I guess it depends on the individual to say which pleasure is worth more or less.
VinnyV said this on September 23, 2008 at 4:28 am
I agree with you that both lower and higher pleasures define us as human beings. However, from Mill’s point of view, the higher pleasures are truly what define us as humans, and distinguish us from animals. You are saying that human beings are classified as more intellectually advanced animals, and therefore enjoy engaging in both the lower and higher pleasures.
markcooper8 said this on September 23, 2008 at 10:53 pm