Inexact Idea of What Happiness Is - Research Paper Example

Happiness Even the ancient Greeks were aware that the ultimate pursuit in life is the pursuit of happiness. According to Aristotle, almost all of our other pursuits in life are with the ultimate goal of finding happiness while happiness emerges as the end goal in itself (cited in Bolt, 2004: 117). The reason it is so difficult to find is that no one really has a clear sense of what happiness is or how to achieve it. Studies have shown that this is both because we have a very inexact idea of what happiness is and because our ‘happiness’ level is constantly readjusted based on our previous experiences. In addition, the modern world fills our heads full of numerous distractions, many of which claim happiness can only be achieved after one has accomplished this material good or that status in life. In America, for example, people learn that happiness is what occurs when we have finally managed to claim ownership of a luxury car, a fine house and a stunning wardrobe to show off the tremendous body we’ve maintained, perhaps with the help of a personal trainer or skilled plastic surgeon. “To fulfill their dreams, Americans claim they need an annual income of $102,000” (Myers, 2000). According to Bolt (2004) and others, almost three-quarters of college freshmen feel being ‘very well-off financially’ to be a ‘very important’ or ‘essential’ goal in life (Bolt, 2004: 124). Other studies seem to indicate that our concept of happiness continues to change through life, so that what might have made us happy in the past will likely lose its ability to make us happy in the future (Diener & Diener, 2009). Although definitions of happiness and how to attain it may shift over time, research seems to link gaining happiness very strongly with the concept of adhering to a strongly identified sense of moral behavior. Within this discussion, it is important to understand that the concept of moral behavior as it is considered by philosophers does not merely constitute a choice between right and wrong behavior. The term “morality” is defined as a “moral quality or character; rightness or wrongness, as of an action” (Neufeldt & Goralnik, 1994: 882) and it is closely associated with the term “ethics” which is “the study of standards of conduct and moral judgment.” Even this much of an explanation is unclear, though, as terms such as “standards of conduct,” “moral judgment” and “moral character” have yet to be defined on a concrete level. These terms are potentially defined differently depending upon the answer to yet another question – what is the greatest good? Without knowing the definition of the greatest good, it is very difficult to determine with any certainty what is right and what is wrong. However, once “good” is defined, everything else becomes much easier. Right will then be identified as that thing that brings one closer to the greatest good while wrong pushes the greatest good further away. This, then, is where the philosopher steps in, helping to not only discover the best theory of right conduct and the good life (what we will call ethics), but also to help shape our understanding of the practice of right conduct and the good life (hereafter referred to as morality). (Sahakian & Sahakian, 1966: 31). Even after deciding what is meant by moral behavior, it is still unclear whether or not following moral behavior brings one closer to happiness. Not much of what the very early philosophers had to say has been passed down through the ages, but surviving portions of the writings of Xenophanes show some of the earliest leanings toward the idea of a “moral, natural way of life appropriate to man” (Jaspers, 1993: 11) as the most essential ingredient to leading a happy life. Xenophanes suggested one of the most important pursuits of mankind was the internal journey toward happiness. These ideas were developed further by Socrates, who was among the first we know of to contemplate the inner nature of humankind. As seen in the writings of Plato regarding Socrates, one of the things a man must do to achieve happiness is to become a moral and ethical man. This is because the man who seeks happiness must first know “his spiritual self as it really is, including all its shortcomings, strengths and potentialities” (Sahakian & Sahakian, 1966: 32). According to Socrates, it is the man who does not know himself who cannot accurately judge his own capabilities and his own unique path to the greatest good based on accurate use of his strengths and knowledge of his weaknesses. Socrates takes this another step by suggesting that knowledge of oneself will instruct from within regarding those things which are good (moral and ethical) and those things which are not. He suggests this by claiming that things that are good will make us feel happy inside while things that are bad will be immediately recognizable to the man who knows himself because these actions will cause “spiritual degradation and mental deterioration” (Sahakian & Sahakian, 1966: 33) that will be immediately apparent. According to Socrates, only the unjust are unhappy, so to be happy (to achieve the greatest good), one must first be just. Aristotle believed the greatest good could only be achieved through happiness, which he defined as “the purest activity of reason, which is theorizing” (Strathern, 1996: 35-36). To help balance outright pleasure with social responsibility, Aristotle brought forward the idea of the Golden Mean. “According to this idea, every virtue is the mean between two extremes” (Strathern, 1996: 36). Although this thought had occurred to other philosophers before, Aristotle rejected their ideas that this mean could be mathematically deduced and applied universally. According to Aristotle, the mean varies depending on the individuals involved, the particular circumstances in which they find themselves and the current climate in which they’re operating, thereby bringing the idea of relativism into the discussion. “To kill a man on the battlefield was different from killing one on the street; and even here, if you killed him in the furtherance of a robbery it was different from doing so if he had grievously wronged you” (Strathern, 1996: 38). Thus, happiness was the result of a proper balance between pure pleasure and social responsibility – morality balanced pleasure – in a unique way from individual to individual and situation to situation that permitted the person with a stabilizing force for long-term general happiness. Within the framework of his own philosophy on thought, the Renaissance philosopher John Locke also made a connection between living a moral life and being happy. “In Book II he reduced moral good and evil to pleasure and pain which -- as reward and punishment -- come to us from some lawgiver; thus they point to a source outside the mind. But his ground for maintaining the demonstrative character of morality is that moral ideas are ‘mixed modes,’ and therefore mental products, so that their ‘precise real essence ... may be perfectly known’” (“John Locke”, 2005). With the presence of God as evidenced by our ability to feel pain and pleasure in accordance with doing good or evil, Locke took things a step further by saying that it is reasonable for us to believe in a God as a guiding force in those situations in which we cannot know or understand fully, but still must act on something. “Such knowledge must be supplemented by faith if we are to fulfill our divine destiny” (“John Locke”, 2005). Finally, he defined faith as being “nothing but a firm assent of the mind: which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason; and so cannot be opposite to it. He that believes without having any reason for believing, may be in love with his own fancies; but neither seeks truth as he ought, nor pays the obedience due to his maker …” (Locke, 1959). Thus, it is not only our moral duty, but an inherent nature that pushes us to discover what is right and good as it relates to our own experiences and is our means of discovering happiness. Even today, happiness and morality seem to go hand in hand. More recent research suggests that the ancient philosophers and those that helped establish the philosophy of the United States itself were correct. The more we behave in socially responsible ways, the better we feel about ourselves and the happier we are in all areas of our lives. “According to Van Boven, experiences bring more joy than material goods because they are more open to positive reinterpretations, are a more meaningful part of one’s identity and contribute more to successful social relationships” (2004). A great deal of our happiness is thus based upon our experiences and our memories which are, themselves, the product of our emotions. “I think we are our memories more than we are the sum total of our experiences” (Seligman cited in Wallis, 2005). When we remember events of our lives as being upstanding, helpful or, at the very least, not associated with any feelings of shame or wrong-doing, we feel happier and more secure in ourselves. “Giving makes you feel good about yourself … When you’re volunteering, you’re distracting yourself from your own existence, and that’s beneficial. More fuzzily, giving puts meaning into your life. You have a sense of purpose because you matter to someone else” (Peterson cited in Wallis, 2005). By contrast, research indicates “materialism is toxic for happiness” (Bolt, 2004: 124). Although pleasure gives us temporary happiness for the moment, the research suggests, backed up by the deep thinking of the ancient philosophers, that true and lasting happiness is only achieved through the elements of engagement and meaning, both of which are addressed when one lives a moral life. Works Cited Bolt, Martin. Happiness, Chap. 6. In Pursuing Human Strengths. Worth Publishers, 2004: 117-137. Jaspers, K. The Great Philosophers. Vol. 3. New York: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1993. “John Locke: 1632-1704.” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2005). Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Vol.1, New York: Dover, 1959, pp.121-125. Neufeldt, V. and Guralnik, D. (eds.) Webster’s New World Dictionary. New York: Prentice Hall, 1994. p. 1015. Sahakian, W. and Sahakian, M. Ideas of the Great Philosophers. New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1966. Strathern, P. Aristotle in 90 Minutes. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1996. Van Boven, L. “Experiences Makes People Happier Than Material Goods, Says CU Prof.” Science Daily. (December 28, 2004). Wallis, Claudia. “The New Science of Happiness: What Makes the Human Heart Sing? Researchers are taking a close look. What they’ve found may surprise you.” Time. Vol. 165, N. 3, January 17, 2005: A2. Outline Introduction Background of what is happiness Thesis statement: Although definitions of happiness and how to attain it may shift over time, research seems to link gaining happiness very strongly with the concept of adhering to a strongly identified sense of moral behavior. Exploration of Moral Behavior as a Key to Happiness Socrates on Morality as the Key to Happiness Aristotle on Happiness as a Balance between Pleasure and Social Responsibility John Locke on Morality, Happiness and Spirituality Conclusion Happiness is a Result of Moral Behavior rather than Material Goods Read More