Philosphy. I. Kant and J. Stuart Mill define and think of happiness

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Philosophy
Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill have different definition and thoughts on happiness. They have also applied the concept of morality differently in their moral philosophies. One believes that happiness should be judged against morality, whereas the other believes that happiness and morality are intertwined such that one cannot exist without the other, respectively.
On the one hand, Kant defines happiness as a condition in which an individual is contented with his life and is at peace with his current state (Kant, 152). Kant opines that the anticipation of happiness is what makes an individual act virtuously. His idea of happiness is based on the assumption that gifts of fortune are part of happiness, and not the other way round. In this case, Kant implies that happiness is not one of the gifts of fortune because the combination of these gifts is what forms happiness (Schonecker and Wood, 40 ). The gifts of fortune include riches, power, and health. These gifts are no different to the gifts of nature (intelligence, perseverance, and wit) because they can all be used for evil unless the individual is guided by good will. While these gifts bring an individual some level of happiness, Kant points out that they do not guarantee that there will be no ill committed because happiness brings out an element of corruption in people. As such, according to Kant, happiness does not translate to being virtuous without goodwill, which is guided by a sense of duty. He argues that in the pursuit of personal happiness, it is likely that other people will be denied the opportunity to be happy too, making it hard for everyone to be happy to ensure morality. That is why he opines that duty precedes happiness. He points out that happiness cannot be a condition for morality because by saying so, we will be insinuating that people can only be moral if they are happy. This can imply that since not everyone achieves happiness, it is okay for them to lack morality.
On the other hand, Mill defines happiness as pleasure in the absence of pain (Perry, 107). He acknowledges that human beings are happy if they achieve certain goals in life and ultimately, happiness forms the basis of morality. Further, he believes that in pursuit of the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, the end is what matters (Mill, 136). Mill also points out that the contents of human happiness are different and changes with time (Mill). This acknowledgment is an indication that what he defines as happiness will change as human being interact with each other. It is also an indication that different people experience different levels of happiness.
Further, he posits that every human being has a right to happiness. In the remarks he made regarding working classes and the rich, Mill notes that one section of individuals should not be neglected for the benefit of another section (Perry 106). The remarks point out that the working classes and the rich are citizens with the same rights and as such, he believes that everyone should have equal opportunities for happiness. Mill argues that happiness is what we should all pursue because it is what, ultimately, we all desire (Lazari-Radek and Singer 21)...