Hector Castrejon

Professor Andrew Israelsen

Phil-1120
18 October 2016
What is Happiness?
Happiness has been defined in many ways throughout the ages. Many believe that they
have the correct definition but there is no way to prove it, of course there are some who have
better reasons than others and therefore are more convincing. This might lead someone to believe
that that persons argument is superior than the others. Among some of the most recognized and
read are the definitions and views of Aristotle and Mill. Between these two views, there are a
vast amount of differences and similarities. However, the goals of both Aristotle and Mill are
very different when read thoroughly.
First, we shall state how Aristotle and Mill define happiness. Aristotle believes that
happiness is objective. For Aristotle happiness is the end purpose of something, the nature of it.
For humans it is to be a good human, to achieve human nature. Per Aristotle achieving human
nature is about finding the product of everything, that which is sought for its own sake. Aristotle
states that the function of humans as rational animals is, activity of the soul in accord with
reason (Aristotle, pg. 9). Aristotle also believes that there are three different types of goods
(happiness), these goods are: External goods, goods of the soul, and goods of the body. External
goods are things like laws, order, friendship, and political systems among others. The goods of
the body are, food, drink, health, sex, etc. The highest goods, which are the goods of the soul, per
Aristotle are virtues, this might be honor, nobility, morality, integrity. The reason that Aristotle
believes the goods of the soul are superior is because when you achieve these goods it does not

matter if you are sick, or if you have unconformity with the external goods like your friendships,
you will still be happy. However, if you are only able to achieve health, but you have no
friendship and no virtues, then you will never be happy, same goes to achieving external goods
without the other goods, only through achieving the goods of the soul will you ever be able to
lead a truly happy life. Aristotle believes that to achieve happiness you must lead a virtuous life.
To be virtuous means to achieve the mid-point between two extremes, let us take the virtue of
bravery for example, to achieve bravery, you must look at the amount of fear someone possesses.
If you look at one extreme you can see that possessing too much fear leads to you being a
coward, however, if you look at the other extreme, you see that having very little or no fear at all
leads to you being too reckless. Now, lets take both extremes and apply them to a profession that
is supposed to have bravery, soldiers. If a soldier is a coward, he will either be left behind or
killed in a field of battle, all because he is not brave enough to face the enemy up ahead. On the
other hand, if the soldier is too reckless and goes charging into the enemy without a care for his
own or his companions safety, he too will face a fast death in a field of battle. Therefore,
Aristotle believes that to have bravery one must be both cautious and reckless, you must find the
mid-point between both extremes. If the soldier was to be truly brave, he would look at the
situation and be reckless and cautious when needed. Aristotle also considers the nature of
individuals; therefore, he says that to achieve virtue will not be the same for everybody, some
people are coward, and must compensate by being more reckless than someone, who is closer to
being in the middle but still a coward, they will only need to compensate and be reckless slightly.
Achieving virtue depends on the individual. In the end Aristotle believes that to achieve
happiness, one must lead a virtuous life in accordance to all characteristics not just one, this
means that even if you are brave but you are selfish, you will not have achieved a true happy life.

Mills view of happiness is slightly different than Aristotles. It is a rather much simpler
definition, Mill believes that to know what happiness is you need not more than ask the people
what they desire, since what they desire is what makes them happy. Mill believes that happiness
is subjective, this means that happiness will never be concrete throughout time and location,
happiness will always change per who you speak to. For this reason, Mill thinks that to know
what happiness is, you must ask the people who have experienced many things, people who have
experienced what Mill calls lower and higher pleasures. Mill defines these pleasures as the things
that bring happiness to people, lower pleasures are those that are can be achieved by animals
such as pigs, because of this they are sometimes also referred as the animal pleasures. The lower
pleasures include eating, drinking, and having sex. When Mill first stated his view on happiness,
which is to do what achieves the highest pleasure possible, he was attacked with the opposition
claiming that if that was the case, we as humans would not be any better than pigs, and we
should lead a pig life in that case. To contradict this Mill stated that there are other pleasures, the
higher pleasures, he was not comparing us to pigs, rather the opposition were the ones comparing
us to pigs. Mill also refers to the higher pleasures as human pleasures, since only humans can
understand and take part in them. Some of these higher or human pleasures are things such as art,
mathematics, philosophy, and virtue among many others. Mill stated that for something to be a
higher pleasure it must also be desired more than the others, to know what is desired, Mill
believes there is only one way to find out, that is to go around and ask people who have
experienced both higher and lower pleasures and see which they preferred better. Something that
many people see as a weakness while others see it as a strength is that Mills pleasures are not set
in stone, they change with what people desire at the time and place they are at. If when you
asked around, you found out that many more people with experience under them preferred what

Mill would refer to as a lower pleasure, then suddenly it is no longer a lower pleasure but a
higher pleasure since it is desired more than the current higher pleasures, and those higher
pleasures would go down to be lower pleasures. For Mill, happiness should be based on the
majority rather than the individual, that is why the ability of this argument to change. Since Mill
is only one and all the others are the majority, then his view of what are lower and higher
pleasures can change. In the end for Mill, achieving happiness is nothing more than trying to
create the highest amount of pleasure for the most people possible, and to know what people find
pleasurable, you need only to ask the people what they find pleasurable, for him happiness is
subjective and will change with time and place.
Although both arguments from Aristotle and Mill may seem very similar at first glance,
there are things that differ the two from each other. These differences as subtle as they are, are
what differentiate the ethical systems involved in both. One of the biggest differences between
both is that Aristotle believes happiness is objective, while Mill believes that happiness is
subjective. Aristotle thinks that happiness will always stay the same, happiness for him will
always be to lead a virtuous life. On the other side, Mill thinks happiness is subject to change,
and the way to find what happiness is would be to ask people what makes them happy. Another
difference between the views would be the categories of happiness each find possible to achieve.
Aristotle believes that there are three kinds of goods one can achieve, the goods of the body,
external goods, and the goods of the soul. Aristotle seems to believe that the goods of the soul are
the only way to be truly happy without achieving the other two, and it will always be that way,
this goes back to his thinking that happiness is objective. Mill on the other hand thinks that only
two kinds of happiness are achievable, these are the lower pleasures and the higher pleasures, but
for Mill these pleasures do not mean much since they can change very easily. Mill thinks that the

higher pleasures such as math and art are better, but if people who did both math and enjoyed to
eat unrefined foods, preferred the latter then math would no longer be a higher pleasure and
eating would no longer be a lower pleasure they would switch around.
Through analyzing and learning both of their point of views I have come to like better
and think of as superior the view of Aristotle. The main reason for this is that Mills view seems
to be able to change too easily as if there was no view at all. Through the view of Mill, he seems
to say that if people do not agree with his classifications of happiness then we should follow the
majority and not him, therefore there is no point in his argument of what happiness is. On the
other hand, Aristotle provides us with a way to find what happiness is no matter the situations,
even if people disagree with him, he sticks to his point of view and defends it instead of just
throwing it away like Mill. Another reason I believe Aristotles view is superior is because he
considers that all individuals are different and that they must do things slightly different to
achieve happiness. Mill however, even though he also says that everyone has differences, he
believes we should all follow the same way to happiness, which would be to follow the educated
peoples definition of pleasure and try to create as much of that pleasure as possible. In
conclusion, Aristotle gives us a most systematically way to find and reach true happiness, than
Mill who seems to leave his argument undefended and in the air, easy to blow away.

Works Cited:
A., & Thomson, J. A. (1976). The Ethics Aristotle: The Nicomachean ethics.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.