The Phenomenon of Happiness - Essay Example

Happiness Introduction Various philosophers including the olden day’s philosophers such as Aristotle and modern philosophers such as Kant have difference of opinion on the subject of happiness and the link between spending a good life and happiness (Pojman 301). Bentham believes that happiness is an incident that is substantially subjective in nature (Pojman 120). Bentham believes that it is a warm feeling that individuals realize as they feel it. Aristotle states that people have no idea about what happiness is and can not tell whether they are experiencing happiness at a particular time or not and are completely unaware of the real nature of happiness. Those who are in the favor of the kind of happiness recognized by Aristotle believe that happiness is an objective element and not a subjective one and to recognized whether one is happy or not requires inquiry and not only introspection. Body The feeling of happiness does not last for a longer period of time. Certain times an individual experiences higher level of happiness as compared to other times and it is undoubtedly a fact that an individual might experience state of happiness at one moment and might even face unhappiness at the other moment. According to Bentham an individual gives more importance to events of happiness that lasts for a longer period of time (Pojman 122). Aristotle claims that stability is very important for one to be happy and the identification of whether an individual is happy or not can only be judged over an extended period of time (Pojman 305). According to a conventional tradition a person was said to be happy if he is really happy throughout his life. Happiness is desired by every one and everybody wants to experience it throughout their lives but individuals experience various events throughout their lives and they may at a certain point in time loose their feeling of happiness. Aristotle further states that happiness can even transform into a tragic situation, but he believes that an individual who is really happy will cope with the ups and downs of life in a dignified manner. Different philosophers have different ideas of happiness, but all agree that happiness is a reason that everybody tries to achieve before conducting an act and it is even the benefit obtained by an individual as a result of conducting an action. Different philosophers may agree about both the events but they link happiness and actions in different ways. The followers of Bentham and those who support his view focus on benefits and believe that benefits provide satisfaction and they focus on the methods through which benefits can be obtained (Pojman 123). Those who follow the philosophy of Aristotle focus on an individuals desire to obtain a good life. Every philosopher is in agreement that happiness is the motive due to which individuals are promoted to conduct any action, but certain believe that it is the ultimate goal and certain believe that it is not necessarily an ultimate goal that individuals want to achieve. Every individual is in the pursuit of achieving happiness, certain philosophers believe that certain factors such as health and wellbeing are necessary to achieve happiness but individuals may experience lack of these factors due to their own fault and fault of others. An individual’s well being comprises of three main elements, these include benefits, satisfaction and pride. Satisfaction itself is a form of happiness, it can not be referred to as a feeling or believe but according to utilitarian it is one of the major elements of attaining wellbeing. If contentment is to be realized as an element of wellbeing, it needs to last for a longer period of time and not just for a few moments or a small period of time. Benefits are even recognized as an element of wellbeing, benefits refers to the satisfaction of the needs of food, drink, shelter and clothes which results in the flourishing state of an individual. Welfare can be of two kinds, psychological welfare and material welfare, material welfare refers to the satisfaction of individual’s basic needs, psychological welfare is intrinsic and is hard to calculate. Certain factors are considered as essential for the well being of an individual, these factors includes; lack of cognitive disorders and issues and lack of occurrence of tragedy in an individual’s life. Dignity is the third element of an individual’s wellbeing and is quite hard to define; it may be referred to as an individual’s ability to control his future and an individual’s ability to live his life his own way. Dignity is one factor that is given great emphasis in the philosophy of happiness proposed by Aristotle and his supporters. The main three elements that lead to the wellbeing of individuals are not dependant on each other and may vary from person to person in an independent context. In certain situations, two of the elements may exist and one of the elements may be missing, for example: satisfaction and benefits may exist and pride may not exist in an individual’s life. A servant or slave may be provided with basic benefits such as food and shelter and may be satisfied with what ever his masters provide him; such an individual may be referred to as happy. But the problem is that dignity does not exist in his life which can only be obtained if he was free and had autonomy. Satisfaction and dignity may even exist in an individual and welfare may not exist, a person serving the church may experience such a state. He may have the satisfaction that people respect him and he is free but he may be suffering from the problem of lower amount of satisfaction of basic needs. The elements of wellbeing such as pride and benefits may exist for an individual but he may not be satisfied, for example: in the case of a rich child who has the basic necessities available and may have respect from the outer world because his/her parents may be involved in charity but he may lack the satisfaction of being regarded as a normal child. According to Aristotle and his companions the best possible route of obtaining happiness is virtue and they believe that virtue is luck which can be obtained (Pojman 315). In accordance to Aquinas and Augustine happiness, virtues such as intellectual, theological and moral virtues are all God’s gift and are in the control of God and are denied by God or given away freely. They further state that real happiness is only obtained after the current lives all individuals. Happiness that individuals try to pursue in this life is not real and is a consequence of existence of bad. On the other hand, the utilitarian believe that the current life is the only life and they are quite positive about attainment of happiness in this life. Both Bentham and Aristotle are believers of the statement that happiness itself is a very important aspect of ethics, while on the other hand Scotus is of the perception that happiness is equivalent to justice. Kant is of the view that duty is more important than happiness (Pojman 218). Both Bentham and Aristotle even differ on the subject of happiness being the reason for which and individual conducts an action. Aristotle believes that an individual who is high in virtue conducts action with the ultimate goal of obtaining well being for himself and Bentham states that happiness is the ultimate goal. Scotus believes that an individual obtains happiness when that individual gives importance to the interest of others. Kant believes that happiness is not the motive of an action; an actions main goal should be universalism which means that the action should be acceptable to everybody including the person who is conducting that action. Conclusion The philosophers of the 19th and the 20th century are highly influenced by the philosophy of Kant and have lost their interest for the philosophy of happiness. On the other hand utilitarian’s are still studying the concept and have taken two different directions, firstly they are indulged in analyzing the link between institutions of moral and utilitarianism and secondly they are trying to locate ways of measuring utility. Sidgwick believes that that there is a conflict between psychological hedonism and ethical hedonism (Slote 126). Psychological hedonism is a term used to refer to the concept that all individuals throughout the world try to obtain happiness for themselves and are only interested in their own happiness. Ethical hedonism is a term used to refer to the concept that all individuals in society should try to maximize general happiness. During the creation of his philosophy, Sidgwick stopped focusing on the concept that states that individual’s should try to obtain happiness for themselves and replaced the concept with rational egoism which denotes that it is obligatory for all individuals to seek a good life for themselves. One view that individuals should give equal importance to both future and current good and another perspective is that an individual’s good and happiness is equally important in contrast with another individual’s good and happiness. Works Cited Pojman, Louis P, and Peter Tramel. Moral Philosophy: A Reader. Indianapolis, Ind: Hacket Publ, 2009. Print. Slote, Michael A. Essays on the History of Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Print. Read More