Is It Better to Be a Human Dissatisfied Than a Pig Satisfied

Oak Trees versus Acorns: Which is better?

It has been argued for centuries now, that people do not grow their full human potential, largely because they do not participate in a reasonably sophisticated refinement . John Stuart Mill, in his book Utilitarianism, claims that "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied" [Mill JS: 1863]. This essay will show that the advantages of being a "human dissatisfied" are better than those of a "pig satisfied". But before this can be proven, we have to understand the metaphor that compares humans to pigs.

Mill compares two types of people: people who prefer to be "humans" according to his definition, and those that prefer to be "pigs". As pigs would Ð''eat up' anything that comes their way, those who choose to live the life of the pig, accept all that they are exposed to. They live "unexamined lives" [Mill JS: 1863] in that they do not question anything, but rather accept all that they are told. A "human" on the other hand, doesn't just accept everything, but questions what there are exposed to. This type of person lives an examined life, and it is that life that Mill proposes that we should strive for.

But besides this fact, pigs and humans do have something in common. This is consciousness, as both humans and pigs are aware of their surroundings and can interact with their environments by basic instinct. This common factor helps in making an intelligent comparison between the two. The consciousness though, that they both have, is of a different character. A human's consciousness has character, and can be broken up into three main faculties. Firstly a human has conscience: the Ð''inner voice' that tells between right and wrong. Secondly a human has free will, in that humans can override instinct in order to make "free" choices. Thirdly, a human has reasoning skills, which enable humans to evaluate situations and reach conclusions. In the pig's regard, it is a lack of this character that differentiates its consciousness with that of a human. A pig doesn't have a conscience, free will or reasoning skills and is ruled by its instincts. This shows us that pigs are only composed of instinct and thus lack character. Humans are considered "higher order beings" because they are composed of character, and pigs "lower order beings" because they lack character. These aspects make Mill's metaphor very effective in helping us understand his argument and give us insight into bases he used.

But the integral question is: which life (pig or human) makes a person happier and gives them the most satisfaction and pleasure out of life?

Pleasure is a fundamental feeling that is difficult to define, but a feeling that people around the world desire to experience- similar to a human necessity . The philosophy, Utilitarianism, supports this definition of pleasure. Utilitarianism believes that all actions should be directed toward producing the greatest pleasure/happiness for the greatest amount of people. It thus places emphasis on the quantity of pleasure and that humans should try and maximise this quantity, in order to live more meaningful lives. The philosophy implies that all pleasures are equal, and only when one acquires a great quantity of that pleasure, will they become effective. Mill disagreed with the importance of the quantity of pleasure, and rather believed that the quality of pleasure is what is really important . This then implies that Mill believed that pleasures are not equal and that some pleasures are better than others. But what makes one pleasure more valuable than another? What is the characteristic that differentiates a more worthy from the less worthy pleasure? Mill answered this question, in that:

If I am asked ... what makes one pleasure more valuable than another ... there is but one possible answer. Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure. [Mill JS: 1863]

In other words, Mill is saying that those that are familiar with the pleasures of both intellect and physical stimuli are the reliable judges who can decide on which pleasures are more worth achieving. Whatever kind of pleasure they prefer is the more worthy kind. Mill uses this concept to show that knowledgeable, "higher order beings" prefer the intellectual pleasures:

Now it is an unquestionable fact that those who are equally acquainted with, and equally capable of appreciating and enjoying both, do give a most marked preference to the manner of existence which employs their higher faculties. Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for the promise of the fullest allowance of a beast's pleasures; Ð'... It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is because they know only their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.[MillJS:1863]

Mill highlights that a, a fool or pig, can only have a different opinion because it knows only one side of an issue. But a Socrates or human, knows both sides of an issue, and therefore can have a different opinion based on valid justification- which can only be achieved haven taken all aspects into regard. Therefore Mill's argument is a good one because it logically argues that people who have experienced both types of pleasures (intellectual and physical), by far and large prefer the intellectual pleasures that "employ their higher faculties" (Mill JS: 1863).

Mill does however admit that being a "human" or "higher order being", does come with its many disadvantages4. When a person is aware that there is more Ð''out there' to know, they are also aware that it is impossible for them to know everything there is or even half of it. This is bound to create a frustration amongst "higher order beings" in that they wouldn't be able to learn all there is to know. This creates pain and dissatisfaction in "higher order beings" in that they know that they will never truly be satisfiaed with what they know. Then one can argue: what is the whole point of getting pleasure out of knowing there is more to know, when the very essence of your knowledge will create pain and dissatisfaction?

Jorn Bramann, Professor Emeritus at the Department of Philosophy in Frostburg State