Ethical Claim about Happiness - Term Paper Example

?Ethical Claim: "The Task Of Ethics Is To Define Man’s Proper Of Values And Thus To Give Him The Means Of Achieving Happiness" By: Megan Williams Introduction Various studies have been conducted over the ages to understand, evaluate and thus reconstruct the false perceptions within the human society. These studies are principally included in the dimension of philosophy which seeks to discover the basic value of life unveiling the nature of truth and establishing the relationship of nature with humanity. Such studies have revealed various interesting, intellectual and diplomatic claims regarding religious thoughts and those aspirations which humans have been cherishing in their life principles since ages. One of such claims has been the definition of ethics and its linkage with morality in human life (Rhonheimer 32-33). Different philosophists have defined the conception piously following different philosophical doctrines. For instance, philosophists following the doctrine of Hedonism ethics believe that “The task of ethics is to define man’s proper code of values and thus to give him the means of achieving happiness”. In other words, those actions or tasks which give happiness to humans following ‘proper code of conducts’ can be termed as ethical or moral. However, the explanation for ‘proper code of conducts’ and differing perceptions regarding ‘happiness’, makes the notion arguable from certain perspectives (Huemer, “Critique of “The Objectivist Ethics””). Thesis Statement The intention of this thesis is to argue upon the philosophical notion of Hedonism ethics which states that “The task of ethics is to define man’s proper code of values and thus to give him the means of achieving happiness”. The discussion following this objective intends to assess this ethical claim from a critical viewpoint to conclude a rational and precise explanation of what ethics actually mean or should mean in human life. Discussion Philosophical studies, since ages, have been directed towards defining the distinction between wrongdoings and right doings. As per hedonism philosophy, the acts or tasks which give pleasure to mankind are right as these tend to give happiness and therefore enhance well-being of the doer (Weijers, “Hedonism”). To put it in precise verses, “The task of ethics is to define man's proper code of values and thus to give him the means of achieving happiness”. Contextually, hedonists explained the theme of ‘the proper value’ to encompass those acts which give pleasure to one and thus are valued highly by that person. This philosophical doctrine depicts that whatever gives pleasure or happiness is ethical (Huemer, “Critique of “The Objectivist Ethics””). The doctrine of ethical hedonism precisely states that humans should or rather essentially pursue pleasure for the purpose of gaining happiness. It is in this context that ethics, represented through the ethical actions of a person, act as a means to achieve happiness for that individual (Philosophy.lander.edu, “Hedonistic Theories”). This particular notion can be justified with reference to the principles of virtue ethics which depict a clear relationship between the ‘rightful or wrongful deeds’ and the conception of ‘happiness’. Acclamations in virtue ethics reveal that ‘happiness’ refers to the ultimate or the ‘highest good’ along with the right as well as the ‘perpetual good’. However, the notion refrains from predicting the means through which that ‘happiness’ can be achieved from the relationship. This is where virtue ethics principles illustrate similar notions stating that humans always desire for a ‘good life’ which is further signified though their achievement of ‘happiness’ through ‘right doing’ (Rhonheimer 32-33). Based on this similar context, the hedonism theory affirmed that ‘happiness’ can be achieved through good or moral doings which are further connoted as ‘ethics’ (Texas A&M University, “Notes on Hedonism and Utilitarianism”). The above illustrated ethical claim was initially formulated by few of the ancient Greek philosophers such as Socrates which today, in the current phenomenon, being securely nurtured by some modern philosophists including Ayn Rand who played a pioneering role in connoting the broad affirmations of early philosophists within a comprehensible verse (Moore, “Hedonism”). To be mentioned, the claim that whether ethics play the role of a determinant to a human’s good or bad deeds and subsequently cause his happiness or suffering is rooted in the milieu of normative hedonism even though the notion can be related with the other dimensions of hedonist philosophy including utilitarianism, value hedonism, motivational hedonism and egoism. The affirmations or notions developed in the premise of these dimensions of hedonistic philosophy were further based on the real life experiences gathered by the thinkers (Weijers, “Hedonism”). One might thus argue that developed in ancient period, perhaps during the early days of philosophy, such claims are quite likely to have insignificant implications in the highly diversified and materialistic post-modern era. However, reality lies in the fact that even though the circumstances change, human faiths and aspirations perceived by mankind change, the rudimental ways and emotions to observe as well as judge a particular situation remain the same. The argument can be better explained with an example from a famous chapter of Socrates’ life. As mentioned above, the virtue ethics, which is today proclaimed as the hedonist ethics was initially developed by Socrates on the basis of his personal beliefs, principles and real life experiences. Once when Socrates was confined with the allegations of impiety and corruption against the Athenian culture, he refused to leave his homeland and his followers who believed in his way of life. In his justification, Socrates stated that by not running away he was doing something which he should do to preserve his morality and integrity. In the words of Plato, “…He [Socrates] has only one thing to consider in performing any action--that is, whether he is acting right or wrongly, like a good man or a bad one” (Philosophy.lander.edu, “Philosophy 302: Ethics: The Ethics of Socrates”). Undoubtedly, Socrates, living by his own philosophies did what was expected from him as a good man irrespective of the consequences which further rewarded him with virtue or happiness. When a similar scenario is imagined in today’s modern day context, an individual is quite likely to react alike; may not be for his/her followers, but certainly for his/her near and dear ones. Hence, it can be depicted that individuals always act for representing themselves as a good man rather than a bad man to their loved ones which further motivated them to render due concern towards ethics and morality, rewarding them with virtue and happiness. It can be argued in this context that even though the lifestyle and human society has swerved apparently from the ancient times till date, the nuance of ethics and the expected leeway of happiness or virtue remains the same. However, it has often been argued that morality and the perception towards ethics, especially when deciding upon what is good (right-doing) and what is bad (wrong-doing), depends on individual conscience and therefore, cannot be distinctively defined at the individual level. When answering this particular argument, it can be affirmed that the virtue ethics apparently explains the reason behind a person’s selection of wrong which in turn distinguishes the claim to be a noteworthy elaboration regarding an individual’s choice for achieving happiness. To be precise, the care an individual feels about their loved ones, fundamentally motivates them to perform the right (Thomas, “Virtue ethics and an ethics of care: complementary or in conflict?”). As stated in the epic creation of Plato, Protagoras, “…No one chooses the evil or refuses the good except through ignorance. This explains why cowards refuse to go to war:- because they form a wrong estimate of good, and honor and pleasure. And why are the courageous willing to go war?- because they form a right estimate of pleasures and pains, of things terrible and not terrible” (Plato 11). Believing the virtue ethics philosophy of hedonism, it can be affirmed that the contribution of willpower at the individual level, which represents the will of a person to do a right or a wrong and thus obtain pleasure or pain as a consequence. Notably, the will of a person to select between the right and the wrong depends on their perception regarding pleasure which is further defined as ethics (Ruokonen, “Ethics and Aesthetics Intersections in Iris Murdoch’s Philosophy”). Thus, it can be affirmed that doings which contradict a person’s will or his/her perception of pleasure is unethical which will result in pain. On the other hand, doings that satisfy the will and the wants for pleasure of the individual can be referred as ethical. With reference to the arguments presented in the Socratic ethics philosophy, it can be affirmed that ethics clearly defines the right and the wrong which is again directly equated with the achievement of happiness by humans. Where good deeds reward happiness or pleasure, the bad deeds cause sorrows and pain. However, the selection of the path remains to be a sole discretion of individual conscience. Thus, a question remains if ethics can be taught. Another question that may arise in this context is whether pleasure can be defined as per the claimed philosophical views. As argued by Rand, the ethical claim made by hedonists by affirming that doing good or doing bad actually depends on the perceptions and principles of individuals. From a realistic perspective, the definition of happiness is also identified to be differing from one person to another. For instance, a professional might say to enjoy the ‘highest happiness’ when he is offered with reputable accreditations to his work, a poor man might say to have achieved the ‘highest happiness’ when his basic needs are satisfied completely and similarly, a criminal might confirm his ‘highest happiness’ after successfully implementing his plan. Hence, because the definition of ‘happiness’ depends on the personal viewpoints and every other influencing factors which tend to create a deep impression on the individual’s aspirations, it shall be quite improbable to agree with the definition of ethics as derived by hedonists (Biddle, “Ayn Rand's Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society”). Even though the argument can be justified at the individual level with reference to the above described philosophical view of Socrates concerning morality, affirmations of virtue ethics and hedonism, it can also be countered on the basis of the fact that such views do not hold reasonably true at a larger scale. For instance, referring to the Socratic ethics, true happiness is received from the pleasure rendered to others or a mass of individuals by performing a good deed rather than acting egoistically for the personal satisfaction. The statement that ethical conducts are the doings which render pleasure to one being based upon specified codes to yield ‘happiness’ has further been argued on the basis that pleasure is not definite and therefore it cannot be explained as the only determinant of intrinsic value in terms of ‘happiness’. Certain principles of life such as considering only the truth to identify reality and to find the actual meaning to human life, developing as well as sustaining relationships, exhibiting significant realizations and thereby obtaining perfections in a particular doctrine, along with conducting tasks obeying moral laws and religious provisions are only a few of the factors which ‘add value’ to a human life even though these aspects cannot be confirmed as valuable in itself. However, opposers to hedonism have argued that specific aspects which are demonstrated to add value to the human life shall not be prudent to be condensed in the definition of pleasure. This can be better understood with reference to Nozick’s ‘experience machine thought-experiment’. Through this experiment, Nozick proved that humans prefer to ‘live in reality’ comparatively more than obtaining pleasurable experiences. In other words, humans do not specifically aspire to obtain pleasure as stated by hedonists; rather they are more likely to desire ‘living in reality’ as a source of well-being (Weijers, “Hedonism”). When relating with the affirmations of hedonists describing ethics as a source of pleasure, it can be stated that pleasure is distinctly defined by every individual depending upon their experiences, responsibilities and aspirations owing to which the definition of rights and wrongs are also quite likely to differ from person to person. Thus, it shall be unrealistic to define ethics as a precise term. As argued by Rand in this context, it is true that happiness and experiencing pleasure based on their personal beliefs and perceptions are the most crucial aspirations of human life. However, it is quite skeptical to define these aspirations or aspects as the principles of moral value for any human (Biddle, “Ayn Rand's Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society”). To be precise, depending on the definition of ethics explained by hedonists it can be righteously affirmed that ‘happiness’ can certainly be regarded as a fundamental objective of ethics, which is further attributed with right doing and wrong doing but can never be proclaimed as the standard of ‘pleasure’ or ‘happiness’. From a realistic perspective, ethics should be guided with adequate knowledge obtained by an individual that can assist him/her in determining what is right and what is wrong. Based on a similar concept, Rand further depicted that moral values can be explained as the attributes of ethics which steer the actions of a particular human towards satisfying the requirements of their life and thus obtaining ‘highest happiness’ and pleasure (Biddle, “Ayn Rand's Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society”). However, certain defined principles, either in terms of social norms or legal specifications, should act as guidelines to assist the individual in recognizing the good and the bad for gaining ‘highest happiness’. It is worth mentioning in this context that the philosophical notions presented through the theories in hedonism and virtue ethics represent apparent relation with “the natural law view” of morality. The arguments presented above can also be assessed with reference to the natural law theory of morality. As per the assumptions of this particular theory, individual perceptions regarding pleasure and ethics are driven through innate values and instincts of the character which further denote the basic law of mankind. Hence, there is a minimum role to play for the legislative laws in order to bind a person’s deed in a righteous manner. These innate values and perceptions of pleasure which are found in-built within an individual are further assumed to be strongly influenced by the societal accreditations, family as well as friendship obligations and other channels of aspirations. Undoubtedly, the theory presents a much realistic notion of morality and pleasure in human life in the modern day context and therefore can be suggested to suffice the loopholes identified in the Socratic ethics and hedonism theory (Bolatito, “The Natural Law Theory of Morality and the Homosexuality Debate in an African Culture”). It is to be mentioned in this context that the natural law of morality connects with the religious belief concerning ethics rendering a pivotal role to God and His creation. As assumed in this theoretical dimension of virtue ethics, the things which develop without the help of human, i.e. the object which cannot be regarded as man-made like the nature, the universe and the living bodies represent a cause or a purpose. To resolve this purpose humans take actions which can further be referred as ‘good’. Applying the virtue ethics, it can further be explained that such ‘good’ gives happiness and pleasure and therefore can be regarded as ethical or moral widening the path for ‘human fulfillment’ (New Mexico State University, “Legal Positivism Vs. Natural Law Theory”). However, critics to hedonism and virtue ethics stated that such propositions are strictly based on prescriptive attitude of humans concerning the selection of right and wrong. To be precise, the theory creates a strong linkage between instrumental principles observable with reference to human operations and their prescriptive principles which should be directed towards ‘human fulfillment’ and thus can be referred as ‘good’ or ‘right’. This particular assumption again contributes to the arguments in virtue ethics that good actions contribute towards pleasure and bad actions cause pain where the former indicate towards ethics and the later signifies the conduct of unethical behavior (George, “Natural Law”). Conclusion Human culture and human societies have been changing over time incessantly with the increasing knowledge and the complexity in their aspirations which further makes it quite difficult to explain ethics with precise terms and connotations. Philosophists since ages have been arguing on this particular concept where ethics has been related with the aspects of ‘pleasure’, ‘happiness’ and aspirations of human life. Hedonism has been known as the pioneering philosophical doctrine which emphasized on determining the role and the importance of pleasure on one’s life and consequentially defining the concept of ethics and moral value (Huemer, “Critique of “The Objectivist Ethics””). However, many arguments have been raised in opposition to this notion where Rand and Nozick explained pleasure to be a vague concept and a complex theoretical perception to be defined within few given connotations. Thus, acting as a means of obtaining pleasure, the concept of ethics also becomes unclear. Furthermore, it has also been argued by modern day philosophists that even though ‘pleasure’ and ‘happiness’ can be assessed as the two sole aspirations of human life, it shall be unrealistic to state that these aspects contribute as the principles of ethics. It is particularly owing to the reason that the perceptions of ‘happiness’ and ‘pleasure’ differ from one person to another and so does the implications of ethics. It is in this context where scientific arguments need to be divided from the philosophical views. The above mentioned statement or argument clearly presents a scientific premise of explaining what ethics is and should do based on the observed case scenario; while the arguments observed in the virtue ethics and hedonist theory indicates what ethics ought to do signifying a set of principles that humans should follow to act ethically (Greene, “From neural ‘is’ to moral ‘ought’: what are the moral implications of neuroscientific moral psychology?”). Therefore, concentrating on the connotation it can be affirmed that the ethical claim concerned in this thesis is highly suggestive rather than being directive to human actions of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. Works Cited Biddle, Craig. “Ayn Rand's Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society”. TOS 6.3 (2011). Print. Bolatito, Lanre-Abass. “The Natural Law Theory of Morality and the Homosexuality Debate in an African Culture”. Ogirisi: A New Journal of African Studies, 9 (2012): 183-214. George, Robert P. “Natural Law”. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 31.1 (2007): 171-196. Greene, Joshua. “From neural ‘is’ to moral ‘ought’: what are the moral implications of neuroscientific moral psychology?”. Nature Reviews: Neuroscience, 4 (2003): 847-850. Huemer, Michael. Critique of “The Objectivist Ethics”. EarthLink, Inc., n.d. Web. 14 Feb. 2013. Moore, Andrew. “Hedonism”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2011). Print. New Mexico State University. Legal Positivism vs. Natural Law Theory, No Date. Web. 16 Apr. 2013. Philosophy.lander.edu. Hedonistic Theories, 2009. Web. 14 Feb. 2013. Philosophy.lander.edu. Philosophy 302: Ethics: The Ethics of Socrates, 2009. Web. 16 Apr. 2013. Plato. Protagoras. United Stated of America: Arc Manor LLC, 2009. Print. Rhonheimer, Martin. The Perspective of Morality: Philosophical Foundations of Thomistic Virtue Ethics. Berlin: CUA Press, 2011. Print. Ruokonen, Floora. “Ethics and Aesthetics Intersections in Iris Murdoch’s Philosophy”. The National Library Network (2008). Print. Thomas, Alan. “Virtue ethics and an ethics of care: complementary or in conflict?”. Eidos, 14 (2011): 132-151. Print. Texas A&M University. Notes on Hedonism and Utilitarianism, n.d. Web. 14 Feb. 2013. Weijers, Dan. “Hedonism”. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2011). Print. Read More