Ethical Theories
Hedonism and self-realization are ethical theories that take roots in the works of Greek philosophers and that developed many branches throughout the human history.
Hedonism is based on the recognition of pleasure (or happiness) and avoidance of pain as an ultimate goal of any human being and thus establish a moral ground for one’s acting in striving to be happy. In early stages, hedonism took individualistic forms of Cyrenaic and Epicurean theories. In order to lead a good life, the Cyrenaics propose to actively seek intense momentary pleasure (of any duration) from our everyday life maintaining that pleasures of our senses and the body are preferable to pleasures derived from the mind. In contrast to Cyrenaics, the Epicurean theory denies active seeking of pleasure in favor of avoidance of pain (in fact, Epicurean view defines pleasure as avoidance of pain) and stresses the importance of long-run mental contentment in life.
While Cyrenaics and Epicureans
sought pleasure only for themselves exercising individualistic hedonism, Stuart
Mill’s theory is an example of universalistic hedonism which takes into account
not only the pleasure people can gain for themselves but also how those
pleasure-seeking actions affect other individuals and society in general and whose
ultimate goal is to increase the amount of happiness for humankind as a whole. Specifically,
Stuart Mill adhered to the theory of utilitarianism (a social hedonism) that states
that moral actions are right if they produce “the greatest amount of happiness
for the greatest number of persons.” The
significance of his work is in introduction of the qualitative aspect of
pleasure into utilitarianism. According to Mill, there are different kinds of
pleasure and the more desirable of any two kinds is the one that is agreed to
be more valuable or desirable for the majority of people who experienced both. The
intellectual pleasure derived from art, music, etc. is considered to be higher
than physical pleasure derived from sex, eating, etc. Based on the
classification of different kinds of pleasure performed by experts the moral
values of the society can be developed and then followed by everyone. To avoid
immoral actions that can be justified as means of maximizing happiness, Mill
adheres to rule-utilitarian view which states that an action is right if it is based on a rule that
maximizes happiness of the affected population as opposed to act-utilitarianism
that evaluates the action itself. For example, a rule of helping others
maximizes happiness in general so we should follow this rule.
Another ethical view is the self-realization theory developed by Aristotle and many other philosophers. It advocates the development of each individual into a perfect human being as a goal of our existence and the base for our moral behavior. Aristotle argues that one has to use his or her main function as a human being, which is to be rational, in order to attain eudaimonia (vital well-being). In other words, through the exercise of reason (the characteristic that distinguishes humans from animals), people should be able to avoid excessive or deficient states/actions and achieve the state of aurea mediocritas (“golden mean”). At this point, a person’s character should be without flaws. If a person develops himself or herself rationally in this way, he or she will achieve the highest good of vital well-being. This, to Aristotle, is the ground for moral life.
It is extremely difficult to choose between Aristotle’s self-realization theory and Mill’s utilitarianism, primarily because both of them seem intuitively right, yet deficient at the same time. Aristotle uses pre-established standards of what the good traits and mores are without regard to different cultures that may have different values. Furthermore, he favors the world of moderation which nowadays seems too mediocre and boring (the history of the world shows that many great deeds and advances were performed by people with extreme emotions and in extreme states). As to Mill’s theory, I think the flaw is in his conviction that people can assess consequences of their acts on other people and choose the action that satisfy majority. I think people usually choose behaviors that satisfy themselves or their groups (e.g. a person would rather help a relative than a dozen unrelated people in his or her neighborhood – people like people of their kind, be it familial, ethnic or religious). The method of pleasure classification proposed by Mill also has some flaws. For example, television rating shows that the white population rates “Friends” as one of the best TV series (second highest rating) whereas the black population rates them very low (lower than seventieth place). The question then is: should we consider the pleasure derived from “Friends” as having a higher rank because a greater number of “experts” rated it higher and consider “black” sitcoms of lower pleasure rank because they are preferable by a minority? Considering all this, I would probably argue that the utilitarian view is better to employ at a governmental or societal level to provide some general level of fairness and guidelines for the majority of people, and then every individual can realize him/herself at the state of equilibrium that reflects the society around. However, if I had to choose one of utilitarianism or self-realization, I would definitely choose Mill’s utilitarianism because his view seems to provide more freedom for an individual. One should consider others when one acts but it is an individual’s choice to be moderate or passionate, to develop his or her reasoning or vegetate.