Outline
Research has shown that, there is a great difference between inherent nature of pain and pleasure and the intensity and duration of the two according to John Stuart’s argument. According to him, many people base morality of their action on the amount of pleasure and happiness they are likely to derive from their actions. They therefore use this to determine good how the end of any action is. The research paper will determine what he meant by saying that, some pleasures are higher than others. Immanuel Kant talked about both hypothetical and categorical imperatives. A hypothetical imperative is conditional with command applied to us at our will and the end of it is willed while categorical imperative is unconditional where our will is exercised in a particular manner with no reference to the end.
Pain and Pleasure According to John Stuart Mill
According to many researchers, intensity, as well as duration of pain or pleasure, matters more than the inherent nature of pain or pleasure. John Stuart mill claimed that some pleasures are higher than others. His argument is now being focused on analysis to find out what he meant. Hills uses the criterion of right through utilitarianism by saying that, action is termed as right if it can enhance happiness and tends to be wrong if it limits the achievement of happiness. This means that the moral quality of an action is dependent on the value attached to its consequences leading to the conclusion that, people tend to focus on pleasure as well as freedom from pain, as the only thing desirable at the end of anything they do. (Zimmerman, 1983)
According to Hill, people focus only on desirable things at the end to determine the worthiness of their actions. This is for its own sake regardless of any other eventuality associated with the action that generates happiness and pleasure to the person feeling good. This means that, how good an individual’s life is, determines both the intensity and duration of how his/her experiences generate pleasure. Mill concludes by saying that, any form of happiness in a person is perceived as good only to the person experiencing it while general happiness is felt as good if it is being felt by everyone. According to Hill, an end of conduct is regarded as morally acceptable if it creates general happiness. Using his argument, people, therefore, tend to desire to generate their pleasure and happiness because according to them, they are the only factors that determine the end of their actions on being good or bad. (Zimmerman, 1983)
‘Immanuel Kant’ How Do Hypothetical and Categorical Imperatives Differ?
According to Kant, moral duties have fundamental principles which are categorical imperative. This means that it uses command where we are commanded to exercise our wills to act in a particular way. Being categorical implies that, it is unconditionally applied to us due to the rational wills we possess having no reference to the end that we are likely to have. It does not affect us because of the condition that we have set some goals to be achieved. Categorical imperative has etiquette and not conditional. Etiquette is applicable due to the prevailing customs singling us out as objects which are appropriate according to politeness standards regardless of whether the standards are accepted or not. (Schneewind, 2002)
On the other hand, hypothetical imperative means that, the command applies to us at our will but our will must be exercised in the way that is given and the end is willed antecedently. The command given in hypothetical imperative is conditional and it is not any command that results in hypothetical imperative. For example, if I am happy and I know, I clap my hands. This command is conditional but its application does not have an end but it has cognitive and emotional states that a person can be or not be in. The will to have an end is concerned with the one that wants it because practical reason should be exercised and having the focus to pursue that end. (Schneewind, 2002)
References
Schneewind J. (2002): Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals: Yale University Press.
Zimmerman M. (1983): Mill and the consistency of Hedonism: Springer.