Fostering the Greatest Happiness for the Greatest Number of People - Essay Example

? Fostering the Greatest Happiness for the Greatest Number of People School English 100 Peaceful and harmonious coexistence within a given community or society are definitely considered to be some of the amazing experiences an individual can receive. One way of ensuring that there is peaceful and harmonious coexistence is through fostering and sustaining the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people; a principle or theory that has been referred to as utilitarianism. There are many ways through which greatest happiness can be fostered and sustained amidst claims that attaining happiness is illusionary. Despite opponents of fostering happiness, moral actions will definitely foster and sustain the greatest happiness within the greatest number of people in a given society or community. Key words: Greatest, happiness, moral, action, utilitarianism, fostering, and sustaining Fostering the Greatest Happiness for the Greatest Number of People Based on the utilitarian philosophy any public policy should aim at making a greater number of people attain the greatest possible happiness (Roberts, 2011). Despite the fact that attaining greatest happiness for a greater number of people is unfeasible and undesirable on ideological grounds, there are better ways of attaining the same (Brulde & Bykvist, 2010). Since the classical time social history has shifted its main objective from poverty alleviation to making sure that every individual receives a more considerable standards of living (Roberts, 2011). Enhanced standard of living is one way of achieving happiness within a given population. Therefore, Veenhoven (2010) argues that despite the philosophical misconceptions that fostering greatest happiness to a greater number of people is both undesirable and unfeasible, there are numerous strategies, actions, and policies that would enhance the same. The following discussion attempts to provide a deeper understanding on how to foster the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. In order to provide the same, the discussion includes definitions of both the greatest happiness as well as the greatest number of people. It is important for the discussion to identify strategies, policies, and actions that enhance happiness of a given society. What’s more, the paper attempts to provide an overview of the main points under the conclusion sections. Definition of Terms ‘Happiness’ is a word that has many different meanings. The meanings of the word ‘happiness’ are always mixed up when use thereby ending into elusive reputations. One of the ways of defining happiness is on the basis of quality of life. According to Roberts (2011), happiness used in a broader sense would indicate high quality of life or the art of well-being. As a quality of life or well-being happiness denotes that life is a good thing even though such meanings do not provide the features or aspects of a good life. When used in specific ways under the aspect of quality of life or well-being, happiness can described some of the aspects of quality of life (Brulde & Bykvist, 2010). In most cases, happiness is used to define two main classifications revolving around the life’s quality or well-being. Vertically, happiness may be used to differentiate between chances of good life against the actual outcomes that individuals undergo through. On the other hand, happiness can be used horizontally to provide a distinction between external and internal qualities of a person. Understanding happiness in respect to quality of life has been commonly used especially in the contemporary economy. Qualities of life can be viewed as either inner or outer qualities on one perspective and as either life-chances or life-results on the other perspective (Brulde & Bykvist, 2010). A life that has desirable outer qualities and life-chances is considered to be livability of environment whereas a life that has both results and outer qualities is considered to be utility of life. Notably, life with chances and inner qualities is considered to be life-ability of the person in question (Ott, 2010). Satisfaction is achieved when an individual attains life-results and inner qualities. Quality of life is probably one of the main measures for achieving happiness within a given nation or society. Greatest number of people as used within the utilitarianism concept and theory refers to a larger proportion of the persons responsible for the growth and development of the same (Veenhoven, 2010). Every citizen within a nation is considered great in his or her own way. It is important for every individual to be counted as amongst the greatest number of people (Roberts, 2011). Having the greatest number of people within a given nation makes it possible for the government or governing body in question to come up with effective strategies and ways of ensuring that the standard of living is uplifted (Veenhoven, 2010). It is the uplifting of the standard of living that utilitarian theorists believe that it is the only way of attaining the required level of happiness (Brulde & Bykvist, 2010). In regards to the concept of utilitarianism coupled with the greatest number of people that a nation can have the following attempts to create an understanding on how to enhance the greatest happiness for the same. Ways of Fostering Greatest Happiness John Stuart Mill, a great philosopher, argues that through utilitarian philosophy that the happiness of the greatest number of people within a given society is usually considered the best thing that can ever happen (Habibi, 1998). In this philosophy, it is regarded that an action can be considered morally right if the consequences associated with the same are greatest senses of happiness (Veenhoven, 2010). Happiness in this perspective is defined as the absence of pain. On the other hand, a morally wrong action is one that makes individuals unhappy (Brulde & Bykvist, 2010). It therefore follows that every individual should be able to achieve the greatest happiness through morally accepted actions whilst at the same time shunning down the morally wrong actions that only yields to unhappiness. Based on the basic idea of utilitarianism, the greatest happiness principle as identified by John Stuart Mill is that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Habibi, 1998). In this principle happiness is when there is no pain and unhappiness is where there is no pleasure and instead a lot of pain. Therefore, making the greatest number of people have the greatest happiness is attainable through making sure that there is adequate pleasure and little or no pain (Brulde & Bykvist, 2010). Notably, it is also considered that happiness within a society is the only thing that philosophers and other people consider to be of intrinsic value. Intrinsic value revolves around pleasure and freedom from pain (Roberts, 2011). It is very fortunate that pleasure and freedom from pain are the two most important or desirable things within the society. Therefore, creating the greatest happiness for a greater number of people would require pleasure and freedom from pain. Amazingly, utilitarians were considered as social reformers who stopped at nothing other than making sure that the world was full of pleasure and not pain (Brulde & Bykvist, 2010). Amongst the aspects or ideologies passed to argue out the concept of making people happy included support for the suffrage of women on one side and for those who did not have any property. In addition, such social reformers aimed at ensuring that there was no slavery, which was mainly associated with pain to the slaves (Veenhoven, 2010). It is also true on the basis of utilitarianism concept that reforming criminals is an effective way of ensuring that there is adequate peace and pleasure within a given community, society, or nation (Roberts, 2011). In most cases, criminals end up causing a lot of troubles and pains within societies, communities, and nations. Therefore, reforming them would definitely lead to a happy community. According to Jeremy Bentham, another great philosopher, it is not right to engage in mistreating animals. Animal cruelty is a serious offence that would not only hurt the animals but the people who depend on them (Brulde & Bykvist, 2010). When people dependent on animals lose their animals due to cruelty of different persons, it becomes difficult for a society, community, or nation involved being able to experience the greatest happiness or pleasure that is desired. Bentham goes further to argue that animal cruelty is a serious aspect of being unfair not only to the animals but also to the surrounding environment that depends on the same (Veenhoven, 2010). Consequently, for one to be able to come up with better ways of fostering the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people there is need to ensure that every one is comfortable and derives the maximum pleasure from the existing animals within the said society, community, or nation. On a different perspective, Habibi (1998) confirms that John Stuart Mill advocated for the aspects and theories of meritocracy. Under meritocracy, it is evident that leaders are selected on merit and not any other aspect of concept as in the other forms or government. Government system that operates on meritocracy is an effective one that gives every individual in respect to ability to serve the people. However, many government systems have the few who control many other people and this could lead to increased pain (Brulde & Bykvist, 2010). Government systems that brought about pain are regarded as those that are not in any way concerned with the happiness of its citizens (Ott, 2010). Consequently, it has been a call to every individual government to have systems that allow for participation of every individual in respect to finding solutions to pains and lack of pleasures that are experienced by many individuals (Veenhoven, 2010). Fostering the greatest happiness to a greater number of people would therefore require that every individual based on capabilities should get the chance of providing adequate, effective, and efficient leadership. Moreover, utilitarianism concepts or aspects require that an individual should be concerned with the pleasures and pains of other individuals. Being egocentric in terms of pleasures and pains does not amount to any happiness whatsoever (Veenhoven, 2010). It is worth noting that every individual should be concerned with the pleasures and pains of other individuals (Roberts, 2011). John Stuart Mill argued that if a person is egocentrically satisfied by personal pleasure then other individuals may not have the chance of experiencing the same (Habibi, 1998). On the other hand, an individual who egocentrically sustains all the pains brought about by life would not have the opportunity of getting happiness from other individuals. This follows that there is more to life than the other physical pleasures, which may revolve around the aspects of people being together (Brulde & Bykvist, 2010). Indeed, this has been one of the ways through which one can foster greatest happiness to a greater number of people within a given nation, society, and community. Opponents of utilitarianism argue that it is a concept that is so demanding. Nonetheless, the concept of utilitarianism should involve perpetual involvement in actions that maximize happiness of individuals within a given community, society, or nation (Brulde & Bykvist, 2010). Despite the fact that individuals should always act in a way that maximizes happiness is considered as a very strict requirement by the opponents or utilitarianism, there is enough evidence that continuous engagement in good and morally upright actions is one of the best ways of ensuring that there is the greatest happiness amongst a greater number of people (Veenhoven, 2010). Continuous good and morally upright actions should continue to involve various activities aimed at enhancing pleasures and minimizing or eliminating plain. As a result, this would lead to one happy nation. Achieving the greatest happiness for a greater number of people would therefore require that every individual involved within the community, society, or nation continuously attempts to behave in good ways and morally upright requirements. Is happiness Possible? Despite the many ways through which happiness can be enhanced or fostered as discussed above, achieving happiness has always been considered to be ‘illusionary’. Many stakeholders and researchers argue that it is impractical to enhance or foster happiness within a given number of persons (Roberts, 2011). One of the main reasons for such arguments is the fact that enhancing or fostering and maintaining long-term happiness is considered to be a fantasy and in most cases not achievable for the greatest number of people intended for with the given environment. There are religious affiliations that argue on the basis of Paradise. Such religious affiliations confirm that man had been chased away from paradise hence he is only to chasten his souls in earth and not to enjoy as it were within the Paradise (Brulde & Bykvist, 2010). Consequently, this makes religious affiliations to consider the act of being happy through enhanced pleasure and absence of pain as an achievable. There is no way that man can live on earth without experiencing pain. Classical psychologists are the fathers of such reasoning. In their bid to provide a deeper understanding of the aspects of utilitarianism, which leads into achieving happiness, such classical psychologists have advanced various profane reasons to support their claims (Brulde & Bykvist, 2010). It should be noted that in a bid to explaining why attaining the greatest level of happiness is impractical, classical psychologists have continued to view happiness as a short-lived aspect of humanity that arises only on the basis of releasing primitive urges (Veenhoven, 2010). In this regards, happiness is not correlated to the demands of a civilized organization, community, society, or nation. Ott (2010) points out that it is only the primitive and uncivilized individuals, organizations, or communities that would push for greatest happiness since it is an impractical aspect. According to Adorno, one of the classical psychologists, happiness within a given environment is regarded as a temporary mental escape from any form of misery, and this is unhealthy (Roberts, 2011). It is also important to note that most of the psychological literature confirms that adaptation especially towards achieving happiness is less pessimistic even though there is a possibility of enduring the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Another assumption brought forth by classical psychologists in a bid to explaining barriers to achieving the greatest desired happiness for the greatest number of people is the fact that achievements of individuals precede aspirations (Brulde & Bykvist, 2010). Given such correlations of aspirations and achievements, it is difficult to have a long-term happiness amongst the individuals considered to be the greatest number of people within a given society or nation. Lastly, in this respect, classical psychologists also argue that mot of the periods of happiness and unhappiness oscillates within a given range of time making the average level of happiness to be neutral (Veenhoven, 2010). Therefore, it is evident that even though there are ways and strategies of achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, it is difficult sustain the same as argued by classical psychologists. Conclusion From the above discussion, it is true that there are ways of making a great number of people attain the greatest possible happiness. Attaining the greatest happiness for a great number of people may involve support for the suffrage of women on one side and for those who did not have any property, advocating against mistreating animals, enhancing aspects and theories of meritocracy, and making sure that every individual is concerned with the pleasures and pains of other individuals. Lastly, it is also important to understand that fostering greatest happiness for the greatest number of people require perpetual involvement in actions that maximize happiness of individuals within a given community, society, or nation. Nonetheless, fostering and sustaining greatest happiness for the greatest number of people within a given society may be difficult and illusionary. Some of the reasons explaining why and how such aspects may be illusionary include the fact that enhancing or fostering and maintaining long-term happiness is considered to be a fantasy and in most cases not achievable for the greatest number of people intended for with the given environment. The research also confirms that most classical psychologists believe that happiness is not correlated to the demands of a civilized organization, community, society, or nation. It is only the primitive and uncivilized individuals, organizations, or communities that would push for greatest happiness since it is an impractical aspect. Lastly, sustaining the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people may be difficult due to the fact that achievements of individuals precede aspirations. Given such correlations of aspirations and achievements, it is difficult to have a long-term happiness amongst the individuals considered to be the greatest number of people within a given society or nation. References Brulde, B., & Bykvist, K. (2010). Happiness, Ethics, and Politics: Introduction, History and Conceptual Framework. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(5), 541-551. doi:10.1007/s10902-010-9214-x Habibi, D. (1998). J.S. Mill's Revisionist Utilitarianism. British Journal For The History Of Philosophy, 6(1), 89. Ott, J. C. (2010). Good Governance and Happiness in Nations: Technical Quality Precedes Democracy and Quality Beats Size. Journal Of Happiness Studies, 11(3), 353-368. doi:10.1007/s10902-009-9144-7 Roberts, R. C. (2011). Utilitarianism and the Morality of Indefinite Detention. Criminal Justice Ethics, 30(1), 69-73. doi:10.1080/0731129X.2011.559064. Veenhoven, R. (2010). Greater Happiness for a Greater Number. Journal Of Happiness Studies, 11(5), 605-629. doi:10.1007/s10902-010-9204-z Read More