morality can’t be all about increasing overall happiness because happiness is unattainable

I do not agree with Mill’s statement that morality cant be all about increasing overall happiness because happiness is unattainable.  Happiness is definitely attainable.  However, with happiness there is pain and suffering.  Without this pain and suffering, we would never even know what happiness is.  Happiness is not possible 100 percent of the time but that does not mean its unttainable.  On top of that, happiness would never be appreciated if it were there 100 percent of the time.  In order to experience joy, you need pain previous to that joy or pleasure.

Does Happiness have intrinsic value?

According to Kant, good will or only a good will is intrinsically good.    If happiness is somehow bad (suppose you murdered someone in cold blood), then happiness cannot be intrinsically good.  However, rational beings do have the capacity to reason and through reasoning can determine what is right or wrong.  I think maybe that what is morally right or wrong has to do whether the consequences of performing the action that way are intrisically better than if performing the action in a different way.  On the other hand if something is extrinsically good, it is possible that it can also be bad.  Kant thinks we should base our happiness on good will.  A will operates on desires, feelings, and beliefs and turns those beliefs or desires into actions.    It can be determined that a good will is the only thing good in itself and happiness can be rendered to have some kind of intrinsic value

Mill- Utilitarianism

Mill says the whole point of utilitiarianism is that an action is good if it increases overall happiness while an action is bad if it decreases overall happiness.  Is there any consideration of intention behind the action in order to judge it a moral or immoral action?   Mill does not provide a concrete enough position on how to calculate overall happiness.  If I could ask Mill one question it would be: How do we calculate overall hapiness and who do we include in that group?  Surely we can include any being capable of achieving happiness but shouldnt we decrease the value of their happiness on scale based on their capabilities of achieving higher pleasures and happiness?  Mill provides no information on how to judge or determine overall happiness

Self Sacrifice

When considering self sacrifice lets look back to the premise of Utilitiarianism:  An action is moral and good if it increases overall happiness, while an action is immoral if it decreases overall happiness.  Mill states that unquestionably it is possible to live without happiness.  He does say that this self sacrifice has to increase overall happiness, or else the self-sacrifice is wasted.  A sacrifice is not considered good in itself.  A sacrifice which does not increase overall happiness is a waste.  I think utlititaranism ties in with the Golden Rule: Treat others how you would want to be treated.  When you apply the golden rule, you are increasing overall happiness.  In some cases it does require self-sacrifice, but in each case the sacrifice being made tends to increase overall happiness.  Mill himself says, “To do as you would be done by and to love your neighbor as yourself constitute the ideal perfection of utilititarian morality.”

Is Utilitiarianism too demanding?

I really dont think that Mill meant to sacrifice everything to increase overall happiness.  Again utilitiarianism bases an action as being good and moral if an action increases overall happiness, while an action is immoral if it decreases overall happiness.  Mill himself says, “Unquestionably it is possible to do without happinesss; it is done involuntarily by nineteen-twentieths of mankind.” Mill does say that this sacrifice of one’s own happiness must be for some end.  On the other hand, utilitiarianism can be seen as too demanding.  Although someone’s intentions may be good when sacrificing, their sacrifice which does not increase or tend to increase the sum total of happiness is wasted.  If we were to think about the morality of every action based on utilitiarianism and sacrifice our own happiness for overall happiness, then how happy would the individual be?

Group 2 Utilitarianism Objection

To truly understand the objection being raised by the objectors, one should also compare the objection directly to the true meaning of utilitarianism.  It is important to take into mind that utilitarianism states that an action is moral if it adds to overall happiness, while an action is immoral if it takes away from overall happiness.  The objection being raised in the case of group two is that men can and in some cases should live without happiness.  This objection matters because objectors are saying it is possible to be moral without adding to overall happiness.  Unquestionably, it is possible to do without happiness and it is done on a regular basis involuntarily and voluntarily as in the case of a priest or monk.  They sacrifice happiness in the form of a family or sex to add to the overall well being of the community.  The objector may also argue that happiness, in any form, cannot be the rational purpose of human life and action.  Mill argues that one may not be happy due to self sacrifice.  They are still being moral as their sacrifice creates overall happiness.  Mill states, “The utilititarian morality does recognize in human beings the power of sacrificing their own greatest good for the good of others.  It only refuses to admit that the sacrifice is itself a good.  A sacrifice which does not incrase or tend to increase the sum total of happiness, it considers as waste.  Mill refutes the objectors positiion by saying that the objector does not take into consideration that the hapiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct is not the agent’s own happiness but that of all concerned.