ell-being. In fact there are certain times when Mill's adherence to the Substantive Goods Theory is put into doubt because of cewrtain ideas of the former two which support what Mill says. Despite such similarties, the Substantive Goods Theory manifests itself as a better fit for what Mill says about well-being and how society should encourage people to pursue well-being. Additionally, that theory is consistent with my personal beliefs about what it means to lead a good life.In Utilitarianism, Mill addresses many objections to his general moral theory of promoting happiness and decreasing pain. Through Mill's rebuttals to the objections, his ideas about well-being become clear. Although his moral theory is important to understand the basis upon which his ideas about well-being sit, they miust stand alone so that one can determine to which theory of well-being Mill adhered. Mill's ideas about well-being spring from his explanation of the difference between contentment and true happiness. Leading up to his ultimate discussion of the distinction, Mill attempts to clear up misunderstandings about what pleasure and happiness are. The swine objection involves misunderstandings about pleasure and the difference between animals and humans, and Mill addresses it in clearing up the misunderstandings. The objection claims that striving for pure pleasure makes sense for an animal, but should not be any viable course of action for any human. A dog gains pleasure out of chasing his own tail or sniffing the behinds of other dogs, and its life should be seen as going well because is getting pleasure from such activities, but such a life cannot be acceptable for a rational human being. Nonrational animals can pursue lives based solely upon pleasure but rational humans can be considered to be beyond such lives. Mill says this objection loses credibility when he explains that there exists a hierarchy of pleasures; lower pleasures are those which are pass...
