Mills and the 'Ultimate End' of Life. Part 2: 'Ultimate End' and the selection of 'Morally right or wrong path'

Part 1 "Ultimate End" and the selection of" Morally right or wrong path" from the point of view of Mills The concept of "Ultimate End" as described in the framework of Mills establishes Happiness is the "Ultimate End" of life. Mills defines the "experience of pleasure" as a hindrance in the pursuit of human nature that can also be seen as a hindrance to the right or wrong path. Mills defines the "experience of pleasure" as a hindrance in the pursuit of human

Part 1
“Ultimate End” and the selection of” Morally right or wrong path” from the point of view
of Mills
The concept of “Ultimate End” as described in the framework of Mills establishes Happiness is
the “Ultimate End” of life. The spectrum of “Happiness” under this framework covers various
means and establishes the validity of certain conducts on the merits of righteousness and evilness
associated with it. Happiness refers to anything that generates pleasure in the brain and the
senses of a human being. The pursuit of happiness under this framework is defined as hedonism.
The present-day connotation of Hedonism indicates indulgence in carnal practices; however, a
refined study of Mill’s framework establishes Hedonism as an ethical practice as long as it is
fulfilling certain conditions.
In order to define Hedonism as ethical or unethical Mill defines pleasure on the scale of morals.
When he compares it with the ultimate pleasures of a Swine, he is actually referring to the
quality of the pleasure that a human being is attaining. The scale of morality from the purview of
the hedonistic pleasures defines the quality of the pleasure as the benchmark for the moral
righteousness of the acts.
The scale of hedonism identifies sensual pleasures and other bodily pleasures as lower-level
pleasures or intrinsic pleasures. Nobler acts like philanthropy and intellectual pursuits like poetry
are higher pleasures on the scale of the Hedonism. They are known as extrinsic or higher
pleasures. The morally right or wrong path is dependent on the value of pleasure over the scale
of hedonism. The lower value leads towards a wrong path and the higher value defines an
ethically correct way (Mills 18).

The principle of the “ends dictates their own means governs in this case.” The scope of
happiness in this framework is beyond the capacities of individuals and dictates the terms for the
men at great places. While introducing the principles of the “Principles of Moral and legislation”
Mill advocated the concept of democracy of and generation of pleasure for all, under this
principle, he connected the happiness of the king with the happiness of the masses and defined
the concept of morally correct hedonism under which happiness for all is the ultimate end for the
society. Mill’s conceptualization of the higher ethical values denotes a utopia like a state where
all the components of the society are in synchronization with each other. The relationship
between the ends and the means can be considered a major source of inspiration for the moral
calculations of society and individuals.
On the bottom line, it can be stated that extrinsic pleasures lead to the ultimate end, sensual
pleasures and carnal pleasures that may be on the lower rank. The framework given by Mills
does note denounces the concept of Lower rank pleasures, it advocates about a path where lower
rank pleasures can be assimilated in a social framework and directed towards the zone of
extrinsic happiness. It also means that carnal pleasures, as long as they are contributing to the
cause of extrinsic pleasure of “an individual”, “a couple”, “a community” and “the sovereign”,
they can be admitted under the framework of “ethical hedonism”. The framework designed by
Mills promotes the cause of ultimate happiness and instruct the society to direct all its mental and
physical energies toward the attainment of ethical hedonism.
The experience machine designed by Robert Nozick is an attempt to refute the concept of ethical
hedonism and promotes experience as the main reason behind the happiness; he divided
happiness into “Everyday Reality” and “Simulated Reality.” The concept of the Experience
machine promotes intrinsic happiness caused by the stimulation of experience as the ultimate end

of human life. The theories of the Mills suggest that happiness is the ultimate end. The
experience machine, on the other hand, defines certain biases of human nature that can restrict an
individual to plug into the “experience machine” for an endless journey of the pleasures. The
“bias of status quo” can serve as a hindrance and promote behavior in a human being to refute
the concept of ethical hedonism (Nozick 23). A person suffering from the “bias of Status Quo”
can refuse a change even if it is heading towards a pleasurable situation. Mills' framework
identifies the “Pain as the extreme end, the bias of the status quo can restrict a person in the zone
of pain.
Part 2
The difference between the Kantian view of morality and Mill’s view of morality
Kant promotes the theory of consequentialism to decide the wrong or right virtues of the action
and fix them on the scale of right or wrong moral practice. This theory of consequentialism
defines the ends as right or wrong. The primary difference between Mills' perspective and
Kantian perspective can also be seen from the identification of the end as good or bad. Mill’s
framework promotes life as a journey for the pursuit of pleasure and pleasure in itself becomes a
pious entity. It promotes the concept that impurity in the pleasure brings down the quality of the
pleasure and makes it ethically wrong (Immanuel Kant 109).
Kantian thoughts on the others focus more on the consequences and restrict the practices that are
heading towards a wrongful consequence. If the consequence of an action is wrong then the
action in itself is unethical and it cannot be advocated by any standards.
While describing both the philosophies in the terms of ends and means, we can say that Kantian
theory denounces certain means is immoral or unethical because they are heading towards a

wrong end. Kant describes morality and ethics as an outcome of the conscious efforts of the
brain with an intention to detect right practices, Mills, on the other hand, defines it as a situation
driven exercise.
Mills criticized the theory of consequentialism as a barrier against the practice of integrity by an
individual. According to him, the pursuit of happiness explains the practice of integrity in a
better way. The pursuit of happiness promotes integrity as a part of happiness for all. The theory
of consequentialism restricts the cognitive process of an individual and leads him or her towards
a prejudiced state of mind. Mill’s framework promotes a journey towards happiness whereas
Kantian thought process restricts this journey on the onset of a wrong consequence.
In order to set the boundaries for the practice of consequentialism, Kant described duty,
rationality, purity of motive and dignity as the moral categories as the center of ethical theory.
The concept of the Categorical imperatives also ensures a journey of morals while setting an eye
for the consequences. The moral categories define a rule book for the society and generalize the
outcomes of the actions. Categorical imperatives are the imperatives that are an output of these
preset moral categories, the rest of the factors like “happiness” and “pleasures” are hypothetical
imperatives. The Kantian theory denounces the hypothetical imperatives because they either lead
to wrong consequences or towards some consequences that are imaginary and non-existing. The
presence of the moral categories can develop standardized conduct for the society and these
conduct can be further developed into laws and norms to conduct the business of the sovereign.
The models developed by Mills and Kant support the concept of sovereign and creation of the
greater social goods. However, means to attain the goal and the ethical frameworks to attain the
objectives in a rightful manner are different in nature. Kant supports a social outlook whereas
Mills promotes the role of an individual more prominently.

References
Immanuel Kant, Mery Gregor. Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1998.
Mills, Stuart. Hedonism. PP 18-19, n.d.
Nozick, Robert. Anarchie, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books, 1974.