Philosophy

This paper has a twofold function. First, it seeks to discuss the criticism that Kierkegaard would have against St. Thomass proof for Gods existence. Secondly, it seeks to find establish the distinction between qualitative and quantitative pleasures according to John Stuart Mill.  Over the years, various philosophers have taken contrasting views on the issue of religion. For most of them, the central theme in their arguments is the existence of God. There are those who argue for and those who argue against the existence of God. The first part will therefore be centered on the issue of religion and faith.

The area of Utilitarianism was one major area where Mill made major contributions. It will be the interesting to inquire into whether this contribution has any significance in the understanding of ethics.

Kierkegaard against St. Thomass Arguments for Existence of God
One of the objections that Kierkegaard would bring forth against Aquinas proofs is his argument for the possibility of a priori knowledge of the existence of God. The arguments for the existence of God in Aquinas were all founded on the presupposition of objectivity of knowledge. This is to say that in all of the five arguments for the existence of God, Aquinas already assumed the possibility of objective knowledge, so that once this knowledge is obtained, it would be possible for a universal conception of it. However, Kierkegaard did not see objective knowledge as being possible (Garff, 2005). While the arguments of Thomas Aquinas took a cosmological approach, Kierkegaard did not accept the understanding of Christianity as preached at the time. According to him, truth cannot only be attained via the subjective means. Kierkegaard says that matters concerning the existence of God cannot only be conceived through a leap of faith, not by way of reason (Garff, 2005). This argument simply puts down the arguments from reason in St. Thomas Aquinas. Kierkegaard maintains that there would be no sufficient evidence from the rational point of view, to explain the existence of God. It is for these reason that he concluded that faith was not a subject of reason. According to Kierkegaard then, Aquinas was right only to the extent that he accepted the knowledge of God from a belief point of view, but the moment he made the shift in an attempt to prove the existence of God from reason, he got into a serious flaw. Reason would have a difficult time explaining the serious commitment that is often found in faith, the greatness of love of God for instance (Garff, 2005). On the same vein, doubting forms part of the belief of the existence of God. This argument is characteristic of the paradoxical nature of his arguments.

Faith for Kierkegaard was a central theme, but his understanding of religious issues differed with those of the institutional church setting. His claim that religious issues can only be approached from a passion point of view seems to have been informed by emotions rather than reason. Therefore, it could not have been idealistic rather it was a kind of emotivism.

Distinction between Qualitative and Quantitative Pleasures in Mill
According to John Stuart Mill, the most important thing is that persons do what brings to the greatest majority of people, the greatest amount of pleasure. This was the central tenets of his moral philosophy. However, not all pleasures were similar. Some were of a higher value than others (Strasser, 1991). The mind afforded pleasures of a higher value than those afforded by the body. If one was to consider for instance the pleasure that comes from serious reflection, and that which comes from eating a favorite meal, one would realize that the former is of a higher value that the latter (Strasser, 1991). He argues that the capacity for reflection presents to the human person the capacity for reflective pleasures, which is impossible for beasts. However, even the beasts are capable of pleasures, but these pleasures differ in quality, and quantity. Qualitative pleasures can be said only of rational beings, because they are the only ones capable of reflection. They can properly be said to be those pleasures that involve the active engagement of the powers inherent in the human person (Strasser, 1991). Quantitative pleasures need not be reflected upon as such. They are of a lower value, and need not be felt by the human person alone. The determination of what pleasure is of higher value is to be done by persons who are adequately experienced in this area. Only those pleasures that have been accepted by a majority of experts can be said to be of higher quality. This understanding of pleasure does not adequately affirm ethics (Strasser, 1991). This is because they amount to a kind of reduction. Ethics becomes a matter of pleasure, rather than a matter of principles. It also reduces ethics to a subjective understanding, which cannot be the case. The distinction between qualitative and quantitative pleasures is only important to the extent of the importance of knowledge. In as far as ethics is concerned this distinction does not have much to offer.

Kierkegaard took an approach that was totally opposed to Aquinas claim of a priori proof of the existence of God. For Kierkegaard, only belief suffices for the true believer. This belief is only sufficiently true to the extent that it comes from the subject, and therefore the teaching that is made by the institutional churches is misleading. In arguing in this way, Kierkegaard was rejecting an objective kind of proof of the existence of God.

Mill offers a distinction between qualitative and quantitative pleasures, with a bias on qualitative pleasures. Although he considers all pleasures important, Mill argues that only the pleasures acquired through the use of the human powers can be considered qualitatively higher in value.