Happiness and Morality - Term Paper Example

?Happiness and Morality Being Moral and Appearing to be Moral Christine Vitrano provides a clear differentiation between being moral and appearing tobe moral. In the book “Happiness and Morality,” Vitrano argues that one can appear to be virtuous by not being virtuous (qtd. in Cahn 408). Appearing to be moral or virtuous means that one has to develop his or her reputation for being one. In connection, therefore, a person shall have to act virtuously at some point in time. So by acting virtuously, a person is on the process of being a moral person. Based on the points raised by virtue ethics, a person is being moral when he is performing moral acts. Therefore, the requisite for cultivating a reputation as being virtuous is through performing acts that are moral or virtuous which makes the person becomes moral or virtuous. This is the heart of her argument regarding the supposed autonomy of happiness and morality with each other. Aristotle postulates “being moral will make you happy” (qtd. in Vitrano 4), which Vitrano argues saying that the morality and intellectual character of a person do not automatically lead to happiness (3). In her words, Vitrano states “we do find happy immoralists, people who knowingly break the rules of society and appear unaffected by it” (3). Vitrano makes a plausible explanation for her conclusion that a person who appears to be moral needs first to perform virtuous acts or by being virtuous. One cannot establish his or her image as a virtuous person without doing acts that have intrinsic moral values in it. I agree with Vitrano that an appearance of a virtuous individual entails the actual doing of things which are deemed virtuous. For instance, a president is not seen as a virtuous person without acting like one, such as abolishing the death penalty because it is pro-life. If the president does the opposite by signing the retention of that capital punishment, on a philosophical perspective, he appears to be immoral by doing the exact opposite of a virtuous act. Based on Aristotelian perspective, moral or intellectual virtues are the key to happiness; meaning, failure to appear virtuous by not performing moral acts does not make a person happy. However, I do agree with Vitrano that moral acts do not necessarily result to happiness because it is an independent domain apart from morality and intelligence. This has also the same logic with what Martin says, “Individuals blessed with every good fortune can be unhappy because they are depressed, and individuals with little good fortune can still be happy” (8). In the same way that fortune does not mean happiness, doing moral acts also does not automatically lead to happiness. Pascal’s Wager: Similarities and Differences with Vitrano’s Christine Vitrano’s view of happiness and morality shares some similarities with Pascal’s Wager. Both Vitrano and Pascal acknowledged the subjectivity among humans in terms of reasoning their state of happiness and their religion. Vitrano states that happiness cannot be construed on the volume of material possessions a person has or the moral and intellectual cause of his or her actions (3). Happiness is when humans view their lives positively, albeit fortune or doing things with morality and intellectual purpose as foundations (Vitrano 3). In other words, human happiness depends on the personal outlook of the person regarding the way he or she lives life. This view is embodied in the “life satisfaction view” that follows the subjectivity of one’s basis for being in a state of happiness (Vitrano 3). On one hand, Blaise Pascal in his work Pensees, encapsulated in his Wager the rationalization behind every religion. In the same case as Mathematics believes the existence of an infinite number although its appearance has not yet been witnessed, the same case applies to the existence of God. In Pascal’s Wager, he quantifies that God is “infinitely incomprehensible” because he is not, by affinity, related to us, and that he has neither “parts nor limits” (6). That is why, according to him, one cannot blame a Christian for failing to defend his belief regarding the existence of God because he has not enough reason to plausibly explain such idea. We are simply governed by our faith that is why we believe. On the other hand, their difference lies in the fact that Pascal’s Wager states that humans have a fair choice of believing into something because the result of that action, say loss and not gain, is nothing compared to the possibility of gains by believing the existence of one thing. That is the case in religion that the belief of God’s existence can reward us more, but not believing at all could lose us nothing. In short, it is better to become believers than non-believers at all. Vitrano, however, believes that happiness is not infinite or cannot be measured. While Pascal believes that people have infinite reasons for believing that happiness and life are eternal, the attainment of happiness can be based on reason, in the same way that people have reasons for behaving immorally (Vitrano 4). In contrary to Pascal’s contention that one can lose nothing in betting despite the insufficient evidence, the achievement of happiness in Vitrano’s view suggests that one may or may not lose a lot of possessions along the way (Strawn 201). Does happiness require morality? Various philosophers suggest that morality is a necessary component of happiness. Going back to people’s situation in general, Fitzgerald evaluates the research study conducted by Martin Seligman and Jonathan Haidt, there is a weak correlation between wealth and happiness (271). Although based on evidence, people who are deprived of material possessions are less happy compared to those who have abundant resources, “increases on material wealth have little impact on one’s happiness” (Fitzgerald 271). Aristotle further believes that doing acts morally will make one happy which largely contradicts with Vitrano’s contention. However, Immanuel Kant explains the rationale behind the two concepts. According to Kant, we, human beings, aimed two basic goals: the “natural end of happiness” and the “rational end of morality” (qtd. in Atwell 209). Humans are creatures who have feelings and senses; therefore, they search their individual happiness without having to think of the moral values behind that particular pursuit (Atwell 209). However, humans are also characterized as “rational” that are required, based on social expectations and norms, to follow what the morality dictates them to do (Atwell 209). Now, we come to the reconciliation of the two. It is not enough that Kant explained the reason for the differing views of various philosophers. While philosophers insist on a particular viewpoint, Vitrano reconciles the two by saying that happiness and morality must be viewed separately from each other (4). I agree with Vitrano in saying that human beings have individual bases in explaining their happiness, whether it is justified on the grounds of morality or not, such as acquiring material possessions (Wadell 2). However, it is also Vitrano who states that happiness can only be achieved by few people. We might ask if people have individual bases for achieving happiness, why is it that only little experience happiness? Perhaps, it all boils down to happiness that is anchored on morality since Seligman and Haidt’s research suggests that people’s quest towards self-actualization is anchored on moral acts and values. Those who are self-actualized people have passed the phase of helping and enhancing themselves, and instead, have done works that are morally praised, like building charity foundations and other selfless acts. Simply saying, I believe that genuine happiness requires morality, but mere happiness obtained from material possessions does not necessarily require. I reiterate that happiness gained from material possessions is a shallow form of happiness. If comparable to goods, this kind of happiness is perishable. It will not last a lifetime, unless doing acts which are of moral grounds because happiness is an expression felt by the heart. This could also be justified by saying that acts made out of moral principle are intangible. Meaning, it will leave a lasting mark compared to buying a gadget that can be worn out as years passed. Moreover, Feldman likewise believes that happiness is not an episodic event because it involves a “deeper psychological condition” that is geared towards the future (28). Vitrano: “Morality and Happiness Cannot Conflict” Is a Lame Reply to “Why Be Moral?” For most philosophers in ancient times who specialized in ethics, achieving happiness is through acting based on moral precepts. This belief suggests that morality and happiness are intertwined, but they do not conflict because one follows as a result of the other. Furthermore, Annas explained that our moral values and virtues are generally affective in nature; meaning, they have the power to produce results such as pain, pleasure, and happiness (Annas 49). Our virtues also involve “intellectual aspect” because it enhanced our understanding of the use of reason and practical intelligence (Annas 49). All of these views solidify the foundation to the link between morality and happiness. However, Vitrano argues that these two are conflicting in nature. I somehow agree with Vitrano’s claims that the two can conflict with each other in attaining happiness. Such examples include a dilemma between doing the right action based on moral principles and one’s personal happiness in a difficult situation where there is no absolute right thing to do. For instance, when one’s loved one is in a crisis, he or she will do everything to help that person recover even if it entails stealing. One is in a dilemma between morality in doing the right thing, in this case raising money in a moral way, or stealing in order to save someone’s life, the last phrase being morally right, as well. Saving the life of that loved one causes you happiness, but stealing gets in the way according to moral principles. Therefore, in cases such as these, we cannot say that happiness and morality do not conflict because they really do. Works Cited Annas, Julia. The Morality of Happiness. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Print. Atwell, John E. Ends and Principles in Kant’s Moral Thought. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1986. Print. Cahn, Steven M. Ed. Exploring Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print. Feldman, Fred. What Is This Thing Called Happiness? New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Print. Fitzgerald, John J. Doing Good (or Evil) and Personal Fulfillment in the thought of Abraham Joshua Heschel and Karol Wojtyla/ John Paul II. Michigan: ProQuest. Print. Martin, Mike W. Happiness and the Good Life. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print. Pascal, Blaise. “Pascal’s Wager.”1670. Pensees. Trans. John Warrington. London: Dent, 1932. Strawn, Brent A. Ed. The Bible and the Pursuit of Happiness. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. Print. Vitrano, Christine. “The Search for Happiness Should Begin With a Question.” Brooklyn College Faculty Newsletter 14.2 (n.d.): 1-16. Print. Wadell, Paul J. Happiness and the Christian Moral Life: An Introduction to Christian Ethics. 2nd ed. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2012. Print. Read More