Philosophy Paper 2

Mill claims that proving happiness is an end for all people requires an atypical form of proof for it is an atypical principle in academic writing. Declared by Mill: Ends, not means to an end, are desirable and things that are desirable are to be desired. Just as the physical senses of things being viewed are seen and things being audible are heard. The ONLY proof that happiness is an end, is if people desire it. And EVERYONE desires his or her own happiness. Therefore happiness is an end for all people.
Though how this happiness is attained is different from individual to individual, the feeling is fundamentally the same. An issue presents itself with the first premises of this argument. The first “desirable” has the meaning of something we should want or the decision that is expected out of us from an external being. This form could be clearly presented as when parents list “desirable” traits of the mate their offspring brings home (i.e smart, philosophical, hardworking, attractive etc). In other words it is a desirable derived from the status quo or groundwork laid out by others, sculpting our conscience, morals, and ethics. The second desirable is a (maybe add internal) pleasure, or anything related, that is capable of being wanted. This form could be related to the cake on the window seal, numerous girls frolicking on a beach in their two-piece bikinis, the pursuit of inquiry, or just laying in bed an extra five minutes after one’s alarm. This desirable comes more from within you, more or less your instinct, not always physical but possibly intellectual desires or wants. Which would be different from person to person but remains the same at the core. Yet the word “desirable” is presented as the same word with the same meaning in the argument and would ultimately fail in the transition from one premise to another, because the word “desirable” has two separate meanings and could potentially be presented as such. Making the over all argument unclear on an exact meaning of the word intended. This would essentially make either the primary or secondary assumption false. The difference between what one should want and what one is capable of wanting is substantial in the aspect that two forms of desire should not be treated equally because the meaning of the word “desirable” could come from within oneself or be affected by something outside oneself. For the same reason that you don’t treat the word “address” the same when used in different instances: To address someone as in confronting them or to write an address on the face of an envelope to send in the mail. Both have the same sound and spelling but fail to pertain the same meaning when used in particular examples. The intended meaning has potential to be lost through communication.
This being stated, in a rather cunning way if I do say so myself, I have this feeling that Mill already encountered this river of an issue, built a philosophical and theoretical bridge, and crossed over it. He did in fact state that this is the only proof he needed and that the proof presented itself in an ODD way. Instead of treating the word “desirable” with two different meanings I feel as if maybe we should combine the, once assumed, two forms as follows: Desirable-the things we are capable of wanting (2nd form) are the things that we should want (1st form). Just as parents are capable of wanting the best for their child and this is how it should be. The tiger is capable of wanting its prey and this is how it should be. This end is good in and of itself that is without support of any other account. In my interpretation of Mill’s text, I believe this presents a fairly acceptable summary for the utilitarian account. The things we want are the things we should want is good for itself at the fundamental core. This definition of desirable takes the second-guessing in decision making out of life. All in all this desire we speak of is an end and not a means to an end for all people. Happiness is the end for everyone, this is the only proof needed for this first, and in Mill’s eyes only, principle of the human function.