Question Details	Asked By	Asked On
Is playing pinball as good as thinking about philosophy?	Jon1667	11/10/03
John Stuart Mill held that there was a difference in the quality of pleasure. For instance, he would have held that if A. enjoys playing pinball, but B enjoys thinking about philosophy, that even if A enjoys playing pinball more than B enjoys thinking about philosophy, nevertheless, the enjoyment of thinking about philosophy is a BETTER enjoyment than playing pinball. So, on the Principle of Utility which is that action is right which affords the greatest happiness to the greatest number, even if the quantity of pleasure or happiness for the people involved would be greater for those who enjoy playing pinball, the quality of pleasure of happiness for those who think about philosophy is so much greater, that if a government had the choice between giving a certain amount of money for the support of pinball playing, and for the support of thinking about philosophy, the government ought to support thinking about philosophy rather than pinball, even if (because, presumably more people would enjoy playing pinball that thinking about philosophy) the quantity of pleasure or happiness would be increased by the support of pinball playing. (And, of course, this would go for building a great hall for the performance of opera or symphonic music over, say, a stadium for the performance of rock music or of Country Western music, since the enjoyment of great opera or a great symphony would create better although probably not as much happiness.) Do you think that some pleasures or some happiness is better than others? Ought a government support a symphony orchestra rather than a rock band? In defense of his view that some enjoyment or pleasure is better than another, Mill writes: "If I am asked, what I mean by difference of quality in pleasures, or what makes one pleasure more valuable than another, merely as a pleasure, except its being greater in amount, there is but one possible answer. Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure. If one of the two is, by those who are competently acquainted with both, placed so far above the other that they prefer it, even though knowing it to be attended with a greater amount of discontent, and would not resign it for any quantity of the other pleasure which their nature is capable of, we are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a superiority in quality, so far outweighing quantity as to render it, in comparison, of small account. Now it is an unquestionable fact that those who are equally acquainted with, and equally capable of appreciating and enjoying, both, do give a most marked preference to the manner of existence which employs their higher faculties. Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast's pleasures; no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool, no instructed person would be an ignoramus, no person of feeling and conscience would be selfish and base, even though they should be persuaded that the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better satisfied with his lot than they are with theirs. They would not resign what they possess more than he for the most complete satisfaction of all the desires which they have in common with him." And, he also asks, rhetorically, this question? If we distinguish between quantity and quality in all other things (diamonds or hamburgers, for instance) why not distinguish between quality and quantity in enjoyment or happiness?
Answered By		Answered On
rosends		11/11/03
Mill brings up two points which I am confused by (at least): 1. He starts by (as you paraphrase Utility) saying that the prime issue is one of either/both quality and or quantity it seems, in that he uses the word "greatest" which could refer to either one. He does use "greatest" to mean quantity when he refers to the "greatest number" -- is he using the word as quality and quantity in the same sentence? 2. The quote indicates that a person, if exposed to two pleasures will naturally choose the one which employs the higher faculties. Therefore, the higher quality of happiness is up the culture ladder towards opera, even though monster truck shows pull in a larger and rowdier/obviously happy audience. But he says "those who are equally acquainted with, and equally capable of appreciating and enjoying". That is only an equality among like minded people. The snob cannot enjoy the tractor pull in the same way that the red neck cannot enjoy the opera (making generalizations here). If the capability of the individual is included in the equation, (and Mill's obvious elitist attitude which connects the enjoyment of "lesser" pleasures with animal or beastly impulses is ignored) then the greatest good is served by the pinball game -- more people have the equal ability to enjoy it. If Mill wants to change the world, he needs to start by taking vast chunks of the population and teaching them to ignore beer and start drinking cognac. Once they have the capability of appreciating and enjoying the finer things, THEN the higher order faculties can be stimulated. His assumption about what a "fool" is or a thinking person creates a grand flaw. People aren't as he sees them.

Additional Options and ratings are only visible when you login!