paper on mills -- essays research papers

I decided to write my paper on molar for two main reasons. The prototypal deals with happiness and virtue and his recognise on these things. I would first off bid to state my disagreements with his ideas and so I pass on cover of my agreements.Mill cont obliterates that a less(prenominal) intelligent individual washstand non be as happy as one with a great intellectual capacity. He also states that you would non be happy as swine even if everything you desired was given. I disagree. I feel that if you do not know of what you do not urinate thus you cannot miss it. If we were less intelligent then we would be more(prenominal) content with the more cardinal needs that our ancestors had. If their needs were met then they were happy. Can we say the same for ourselves? change surface if I had everything I ever wanted I could not be as happy as a caveman who had a mate, satisfactory hunting grounds and a full stomach. They had no one to perplex about except protecting t heir clan. Yet we as a more civilized culture beat much more to concern ourselves with. We must(prenominal) not only worry about ourselves and our families but also our neighbors and communities. If a caveman was considered virtuous it was because he was a good protector and supplier and could be relied upon by his clan, yet for a man to now be considered virtuous it takes almost the same but this remnant is much harder to achieve.I do feel like Mill that to live virtuously is a goal that we should all strive to attain and like him I intend that these acts bequeath not bring about happiness as an end but by acting in such a port will contribute to your overall happiness exponentially. I also like the fact that that if something should bring about your happiness then it is ok to turn up and achieve it such as money. He does not say it is maltreat to try and get as much money as you can and he says it is ok if it is a means to an end for bringing you happiness. property will buy many of our desires and wishes and for many it is there main goal in life and yet for others obtaining the money itself is there goal. That alone will bring them happiness as it is there driving force and having generous will satisfy them. This in many occasions will realize the person noxious to others but not always. We should look at this then that to try and achieve a lot of money but not become noxious and still trying to live virtuously would be acceptable. That is not necessarily everyones goal who hopes to acquire... ... say I do not care if my child is sick and needs to go to the set up I want a new pair of shoes and do not have enough money to do both? No it is unthought-of (At least for those with any morals or virtues). These are simple-minded to deduct but what about when we face times of war? Who decides who is sacrificed then? Is it justifiedly of them to make such decisions? I say yes. If we have primed(p) these people in a position of authority then they have that right because we have placed our trust in them to act in a manner that will be for the good of our fellowship. It then becomes our right to make this sacrifice. If we do not then someone else must take our place. Then we have not only acted wrongly but we have shirked our duty to our community and placed someone elses life at risk for our own cowardice or selfishness. Therefore the good of the community should be sacrificed for, and those in charge should be able to make those decisions base on the trust we placed in them when they received those positions.I will sum this up by stating that living virtuously, morally and by involuntary to sacrifice for the greater good sum up most of Mills philosophy all of which I agree with wholeheartedly.