Printable View
I was reading an article earlier that quotes from John Stuart Mill's
'Utilitrianism' as follows - 'it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied'.
What would everyone rather be?
I'll take the grumpy, dissatisfied human over the pig thanks.
I love Mill to bits, but his concept of the separation of pleasures always troubled me a bit.
It's difficult to appreciate the full weight of the quote without understanding that Mill thinks that we as a society should be promoting the greatest pleasure for as many people as possible, what Mill goes on to argue is that intellectual and "moral" pleasures are of more value than what he termed the "contentment" of physical pleasures. I'm inclined to agree with Mill, but I'm not sure I can separate my agreement from my own biases. I would rather be unhappy and have my education than be a brainless slob living in a pleasure machine. Is that for the greater good? I'm inclined to value individual liberty, but once again I'm not sure I can separate that from my own biases, I've pretty much internalized most of the basic premises of Liberalism, and I'm not likely to turn on them now.
Hear! Hear! Mill's a Pill!
Sometimes it's okay and mighty fine to slob about and enjoy the pigginess
And sometimes it's better for Self-Discipline to rule the Rooster Hatch
And sometimes it's fun to ridicule philosophers in their quest for absolute truth
Sometimes, say after a big meal, far better to just allow satisfaction to settle in
Sometimes, climbing Mount Killaminjaro say, it's better to challenge oneself
My name is MystyrMystyry, and I have spoke!
I would much rather be a happy fool than a dissatisfied socrates. Ignorance is bliss, at the end of the day the fool doesn't realize what he knows not of.
If this question 'Socrates dissatisfied or a pig satisfied, which would you choose?' was asked to Aristotle, a prominent member of the Socratic School of Thought and the developer of Logic as a science, he certainly would have answered, 'Socrates was such satisfied with his life that in his later years he began to consider himself as a satisfied pig.' History shows that Socrates led long years of a happy life, unrestricted effectively by anybody. His death also was at his choice. He already had lived 86 years. His decision to die made him actually able to live through centuries. His trial provided him with as many opportunities for escape as one could imagine, but he wished to become a martyre so that he could further the advancement of his arguments and logic.
Socrates could have simply confessed, condemned his boy-lover, restrained himself from infuriating the sympathetic juries comprising of quite a number of his friends and students by provocative statements or aquiesced to his followers' plan to liberate him from the prison by force. Even though Plato, fearing repraisals for associating with Socrates ran away and lived for nearly twelve years in as far countries as India, there were no pursuit and repraisal. Plato in his later years and then Aristotle really enjoyed princely patronage. In Athens at that time, corrupting the young men of the city meant corrupting one single young man, the son of his chief accuser and his boy-lover, which was not uncommon in his times. So Aristotle no doubt would have emphasized his statement.
Orwell said much the same thing when he said that he would rather lose his brain than his legs as he could still walk to the pub and enjoy a pint with no intellect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Like_Herod
You'd be programmed not to!Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
;)
Agree entirely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
You may as well ask the pig if he wants to swap with the human.
delete
duplicate post
clicked the wrong key.
From my sporadic (and from this vantage point, dismayingly remote) education, I seem to remember that the "take home message" drummed into me pate about utilitarianism was "the greatest good for the greatest number." I don't know if the motto came from Mill or Bentham, though.
Logic (perhaps invincibly flawed) tells me that in order to be a do-gooder for a lot o' peeps then it's probably preferrable to be dissatisfied than satisfied as a pig in poop, right?
:thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist