PHI 2010

Sana Malik
Argumentative Essay #2
Word Count: 1349

Morality is interpreted in two different ways by John Stuart Mill and Aristotle, making the idea
of morality free for discussion. In this essay I will summarize the views of these philosophers
and argue that neither of their interpretations are sufficient in suggesting what aspect of
performing an action makes it moral, whether by one’s action or one’s character alone.
1. Mill’s Utilitarianism
According to Mill, happiness is defined by creating more human pleasures and avoiding the
opposite, pain. A person is moral if they perform an action that follows this logic. Since it is the
action of a person that dictates whether that person is moral or not, morality is dependent solely
on if the action a person takes creates a net happiness where more people experience pleasure
than experience pain. This doctrine requires that I succeed in creating pleasure, therefore
happiness, to be moral.
An example of this could be that I volunteer at a homeless shelter. I decide to volunteer at the
shelter and those hours of work add to the net happiness of many people regardless, so my action
and myself are morally correct.
2. Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics
Aristotle also states that morality depends on the chief good, namely happiness, but defines
happiness as the activity of the soul: good habits and character create a virtuous person who can
practice good habits that create virtue. Morality is not dependent on the outcome but the intent
behind the action. If a person does something with virtuous intent (courage, temperance, etc.)
that promotes happiness, then they are considered moral. Morality is dependent on character.
For example, if I volunteer at this homeless shelter because I think it would be generous, then I
am being a moral person. Whether or not I end up helping someone is not required so long as I
have a virtuous intention.
3. Critique of Doctrines and Objections
Each philosophy has some merit that makes it able to justify a scenario as moral, but in certain
situations one philosophy is more applicable.
a. Aristotle Succeeds Where Mill Fails
In one example we can find that Aristotle’s philosophy is more applicable than that of Mill. Say
that I am a surgeon trying to save a child. I make the assessment that the child is braindead and
likely won’t be revived but see that his organs are all intact. I know that there are other children
on a waiting list for organ donations who will die if they wait too long, so I decide to not risk the
parents of the operated child rejecting the organ donation and take it upon myself to harvest these
organs. I am directly disobeying the ethical trust between patient and doctor, as well as the oath
to do no harm to the patient, and according to Aristotle this would be immoral. My intentions
cannot fit into a virtue as I am consciously deciding to be unethical for the sake of the outcome
PHI 2010
Sana Malik
Argumentative Essay #2
Word Count: 1349
of another child surviving. This outcome is not required, so I am just being unethical and
immoral.
This is an agreeable way of thinking as I had no right to the organs, but Mill would say I was
moral. Since my actions directly benefitted another person, and the pleasure from saving a life
outweighs the pain of betraying the parents, I am morally sound.
Someone may object and say that the outcome of saving a life means more than the
disappointment of the parents, as a life naturally matters more. If this were the case, why ask for
consent in the situation? Mill’s philosophy is insufficient because it ignores the rights of people
to make decisions like this in favor for a bigger picture that would render those people’s opinions
meaningless. Aristotle considers morality in ethics, specifically a person’s right to choose for
themselves and our intent to respect those choices.
b. Mill Succeeds Where Aristotle Fails
In another example I am back at the homeless shelter, but I decide to volunteer because I want to
look good in front of other people. Now I am disobeying Aristotle’s view on morality. To him, I
am not promoting happiness since I am not being virtuous in my action and so I am not being
moral, which contrasts Mill’s view that if I am promoting pleasures then I am promoting
happiness and must be moral. In this case, Mill makes more sense. If two people led the same
lives, one with Aristotle’s virtuous intent and one without, then who are we to say one is less
moral than the other? I believe it is nonsensical to accuse someone of being immoral if they are
performing good actions even if that is for selfish reasons.
Someone may object by saying since there is a clear difference in the moralities then how can we
say they are the same level of moral. Doing something for a good purpose must be more moral
than doing it for the self. I agree, but this could be due to personality. No two people are the
same, and some are more apathetic than others. Aristotle preaches that virtues can be practiced
and make a more virtuous person, so why are we using his theory to demonize someone who
may be promoting goodness because they know it is correct to do rather than out of generosity or
courage? I believe that itself is virtuous reasoning, but Aristotle does not consider this.
c. Both Philosophies Fail
Finally, I think Mill and Aristotle’s theories both lack in certain scenarios that can be argued as
moral. Say that I am highly religious, and I believe being a faithful, good person means fearing
God’s wrath. My religion says that premarital sex is forbidden so I force my daughter to break up
with her high school sweetheart in fear of God’s wrath coming down on me as the responsible
parent. Am I immoral?
Mill and Aristotle would say yes. Since there is no measurable net happiness after death, my
daughter is only experiencing pain. Pain is the opposite of happiness, so I am immoral to Mill.
Since my reasoning is due to fear of God’s wrath rather than one of Aristotle’s virtues, I am also
immoral as I am not acting with virtuous intent and not promoting happiness. Unlike the example
PHI 2010
Sana Malik
Argumentative Essay #2
Word Count: 1349
with the parents who chose for their dying child, I am the one performing the questionable act
and I am the one lacking in virtue since I am acting purely out of fear of my consequences.
However, some would say that I am being moral. A real person who links religion to being
morally correct would see the rule of chastity and believe that it is their obligation to follow
God’s orders to maintain being good. Since the action is not as severe as physical abuse, nor
extremism, and can be interpreted as a parent’s right to raise their child in a certain way,
someone could reasonable argue that they are moral from a religious perspective that Mill’s and
Aristotle’s philosophies cannot understand.
An objection to this argument could be that this fear of God should be considered virtuous.
Aristotle’s philosophy depends on acting with a virtue in mind, so something like piety should be
considered morally sound. I would argue back that Aristotle makes a clear list of virtues that he
considers applicable to morality, and simply looking at this list we see that fear of God or piety
are not included. I am arguing that Aristotle’s philosophy, not adjustments made by other people,
does not cover the idea of morality in a sound way, and neither does Mill’s philosophy.
4. Conclusion
Mill and Aristotle both argue different philosophies that consider morality and the prerequisites
for being a moral person. Though each can be applied well to given scenarios, neither are totally
capable of covering the spectrum of reasoning for performing actions that are less obviously
moral. Each philosophy can lack where the other succeeds, and both are insufficient when
considering the fear of God as a motive to act in a way that promotes Mill’s definition of pain.