The very fact that people define happiness differently tells me that the perception of it may also vary greatly. Happiness is defined as fleeting as a momentary feeling or as lingering as a state of being. Two great philosophers in history, John Stuart Mill and Aristotle created moral theories in an attempt to structuralize this thing called happiness. In the ensuing paragraphs, I will discuss their similar yet different philosophical theories of happiness.
To begin with, Mill presents the idea of happiness from a utilitarian standpoint. His definition of happiness explains that, "by happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure" (P. 11). Happiness can be achieved through the promotion of pleasure and the absence of pain for the greatest number of people according to Mill. Mill also recognizes the hierarchy of the types of pleasure ranging from "animal appetites" related to base desires, to "elevated faculties" that are uniquely said to be found among humans (P. 12). Mill argues that, "it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied" (P. 15). According to the utilitarian principles, Mill also claims that it is the result of an action that counts rather than the motive of an action or the morality of the person who does the action. Meaning that to know whether an action is "right" or "wrong", one needs to calculate if the result of the action consequently increased the happiness of the majority of the people. For example, he states, "a sacrifice which does not increase, or tend to increase, the sum total of happiness, is considered as wasted" (P. 25). Mill introduces "the Greatest Happiness principle", which explains that, "actions are right as they promote happiness and wrong as tend to produce the reverse of happiness[of the greatest number of people]," (P.