He would clarify that greater value is placed on Eudemonistic happiness, happiness rooted in virtue and wisdom. (Mill)
	Utilitarianism would say that Paris Hilton killing herself is morally wrong, not because of her motives, but because of the consequences of the act. Think of Paris’ family and her loyal fans! Woe to the tragedy that they would experience not having their favorite role model to look up to! Who would take care of that stupid dog that for some reason lives in her purse?! Then there are the people who would have to fish her carcass out of whatever unfortunate body of water broke her fall… inconvenience all around. So despite how much better Paris herself might feel, if her death would bring more pain to the world than it would joy, it is immoral.
	Most of us are not suicidal. But the principles outlined in these two moral theories are probably incorporated in some ways into most people’s personal moral codes. To some degree, each of these approaches contains elements that seem to be intuitive to human nature. It is not necessary for us to accept either holistically. Perhaps there is something to be learned from both. But regardless of whether or not there is any value in the application of these concepts, there is an almost irrefutable gain in the act of examining them.


In 1965, one of human kind’s greatest philosophers did what many great minds before him had done. He posed a question. To a captive audience, Bill Cosby simply asked, “Why is there air?” Now, we will ignore for a moment that our beloved, sweater-clad genius answered by suggesting that there is air so that we can fill up basketballs, because he demonstrates an important aspect of human nature. When people are given an opportunity to sit and think, they will almost always ask at some point: “What is everything made of?”
Modern mankind answers this question through a method only recently made possible. We now possess technologies through which everything on our planet can be broken down to its smallest form and examined with astounding clarity. We know, as a result of this technology, that everything is comprised of irreducible, indestructible materials known as atoms. Our children are now taught with certainty that atoms are the building blocks of everything that they see, and that even they themselves are comprised of these tiny units. This concept, while easy to comprehend when simplified, is by nature actually quite complex. It has taken years of research and careful examination for the scientific community to develop its understanding of what we now accept as truth about atoms. This comes as no surprise, as it is hard to imagine that such microscopic, intricate particles could ever be understood. But what is hard to imagine, what truly baffles the mind, is that the basic concept of atoms, known as Atomism, was being discussed by some philosophers earlier than 400 B.C.
