Definition Essay On Happiness
Defining Happiness
Many philosophical thinkers have attempted to explain the question of what makes human beings happy and how this happiness can be spread to the greatest number of people. This issue is perhaps one of the most challenging to tackle because there are so many different ways for people to achieve happiness. Scholars such as John Stuart Mill and Aristotle attempt to point out universal truths by defining key aspects of happiness such as pleasure and attempting to do good. They both bring up valid, respectable ideas that tell us a lot about how to act so that all of mankind will benefit. However, there is some difficulty in applying these ideas in the real world because of how varying and unpredictable people may be.
Utilitarianism …show more content…
is generally defined as attempting to maximize total benefits while simultaneously decreasing all negative outcomes. John Stuart Mill, a proponent of this principle, believes that numerous people don’t understand utilitarianism because they think of utility as the opposite of pleasure. He says that utility is in fact pleasure without the presence of pain. He believes that utility is synonymous with the “Greatest Happiness Principle.” This principle, as Mill puts it, “holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure” (Mill, 1863). Mill is not arguing for everyone to pursue their own happiness with no regard for others. Reasonably, he states that actions that are moral are those that boost the total utility in the world. These actions should not only consider the happiness of people, but the happiness of all sentient beings (Mill, 1863). Anything that can feel should be taken into consideration according to Mill’s utilitarianism approach. This idea of maximizing total good is beneficial because it see’s every persons happiness as equally important. If everyone is attempting to act in a way that benefits the world then the world will undoubtedly be a better place to live in.
In theory, this idea seems fair and just, but in reality there are several complications that make it challenging to implement. Would rich, successful people really give up their lavish lifestyles to more evenly distribute their wealth to seemingly less happy people? Many of them would feel that they deserve the right to have these advantages because they worked so hard to earn them. Should property be redistributed evenly to provide more utility to people who are suffering because they are homeless? This would require drastic changes and cause civil unrest among wealthy landowners. Although these examples may seem extreme, in many cases this approach would require radical change that many would consider to be unfair and unnecessary. A more common situation is when a business must decide how to fairly distribute its profits. If a business is attempting to follow Mill’s utilitarian approach, then all sentient beings that the business could affect should receive the maximum amount of utility possible. However, it is difficult to determine how to distribute the profits so that maximum utility is achieved. The shareholders want their cut of money for investing in the company, while managers may want a bonus or to reinvest the profits in the company for growth. At the same time, the business could be polluting the surrounding communities and killing the wildlife in the area. Which party deserves more utility than the others? With so many different groups being affected, how can a manager measure the total happiness that will be attained after making his or her decision? In reality, the manager cannot know because happiness is very hard to quantify. A more logical and still ethical approach for the business is to follow Edward Freeman’s Stakeholder theory. While Freeman thinks that companies should create value for all those affected by the business, he acknowledges “trade-offs” when it comes to pleasing multiple groups of stakeholders (Freeman, 2011). These trade-offs are the sacrifices that a manager has to make when faced with multi-faceted business decisions. Although Freeman aims to avoid trade-offs, he recognizes that they are sometimes necessary when faced with a hard decision. He also sees stakeholders as interconnected, all relying on one another to create the maximum amount of value possible. Freeman makes a clear argument about how important maximizing value for all stakeholders is, while stating possible incidents that could occur within his theory. While Mill’s ideas are transparent, he makes it seem too easy to implement such vague measures of human pleasure to achieve a greater good. All in all, Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle is flawed because it fails to recognize the extreme difficulty in measuring the happiness of all sentient beings and creating a situation that maximizes happiness for everyone. Although there is some ambiguity in his first point, Mill provides some valuable insight on the different types of pleasure and their range of significance.
Mill believes that when deciding if an action is moral, one must weigh not only the quantity of the pleasure, but also the quality (Mill, 1863). Some pleasures are more intrinsically valuable than others and are therefore of higher quality. For example, working hard to get an excellent job is of higher quality than eating a hotdog when hungry. He notes the distinction between higher and lower quality pleasures and how to tell them apart. A person will always choose a higher quality pleasure over a different pleasure, regardless of the quantity, even if the higher quality pleasure is paired with discomfort (Mill, 1863). A person who is more sophisticated and achieves a high quality of pleasure will often suffer more because they are more aware of the limitations and suffering of the world. However, Mill believes that with the same access to both types of pleasure, it is unquestionable that people will choose the pleasure that will develop their higher capacities over those that do not. Mill illustrates his point by saying, "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied…” (Mill, 1863). This quote illustrates that it is more desirable to be intellectual and dissatisfied than ignorant and satisfied. Humans, even when dissatisfied, will always maintain their dignity over succumbing to a lower quality of life. Still, what if a person truly believes they are experiencing high quality of pleasure, but in reality they are the “satisfied fool.” Mill continues the previous quote and gives us insight on how the quality of pleasures can be judged by saying, “And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinions, it is because they only know their side of the question" (Mill, 1863). A fool and a pig, while satisfied, are experiencing only lower qualities of pleasure. Even if they both were to argue that they are experiencing high qualities of pleasure, they do not have the intellectual scope to realize the quality of their own pleasure. Neither the pig nor the fool has ever experienced high quality pleasure, so they are not able to judge the quality of the pleasure they experience. A person who has gone through a range of experiences of both higher and lower qualities of pleasure is best at judging the quality of a pleasure. Understanding these levels of pleasure and how to judge them is important when attempting to define what makes a person happy.
These ideas of quantifying and qualifying different levels of pleasure clear up some of the ambiguities from Mill’s first claim. Before it was unclear how a business could possibly follow the Greatest Happiness Principle with no real way to measure total happiness afterwards. With the concept of ranging qualities of pleasure, the greatest good for the greatest number of sentient beings refers to maximizing the highest quality of pleasure possible for these sentient beings. Nonetheless, combining Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle and the differing qualities of pleasure raises some concerns. He believes that an action is moral if it does the greatest good for the maximum amount of sentient beings. He also believes that no quantity of a lower pleasure could ever be more desirable than even a miniscule amount of higher pleasure (Mill, 1863). It seems impossible to think that no human being on earth would forego a little bit of intellectual or emotional pleasure in order to receive a great deal of physical pleasure. The idea of measuring pleasure is ambiguous as is, creating a grey area when it comes to judging its quantity and quality. Mill makes it seems as if there is a clear distinction when judging between the total benefit of a large amount of low quality pleasure and a small amount of high quality pleasure. Mill argues that our actions should not be at the expense of others pleasure, especially if it is high quality. It is impractical to expect a person give up all of his or her lower pleasures if these pleasures somehow caused someone else to lose a portion of their higher pleasures (Booher, 2014). How can one quantify and judge the amount of low level pleasure lost compared to the high level pleasure gained in this scenario? These discrepancies weaken Mill’s argument and make his ideas seem unrealistic for practical use in the real world. Aristotle provides a comprehensive view of happiness and ties it to universal truths. He also recognizes the differing opinions humans have about what makes them happy, while giving valuable insight on the supreme “Good” and what determines true happiness. In “Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle acknowledges that people do not always agree on what constitutes happiness.
However, he does say that everyone agrees that the supreme Good is happiness (Ross, 1998). Everyone’s actions are directed at some end that is considered good. Sometimes the action is a means to an end, rather than being an end in itself. This approach, which does not exemplify the supreme Good, is basically only doing good for its consequences. Other actions are ends in themselves and are pursued for their own intrinsic value. These actions are seen as the supreme Good and are necessary for our existence. Everyone should act in a way that, if all people acted in this way, everyone would be well off. For example, a person might tell a lie to reach a higher position at their company. If everyone lied just to get ahead then there would be no such thing as a promise. Without promises, we would most likely cease to exist. This is why everyone should strive to achieve the supreme Good so that we all benefit. Aristotle also talks about the different ways people see happiness. Some think that receiving honors and recognition is true happiness, but honors are actually the recognition of the good itself. He says that virtue and intelligence are only good because they result in happiness (Ross, 1998). He says that a human’s distinctive quality is their ability to rationally think. Aristotle stresses that the supreme good is reached when an activity is in accordance with virtue and of rational thought. It is almost always true that a virtuous, rational thinking person, who’s actions reflect the supreme Good, will be truly happy in their
life. The work of both Mill and Aristotle is very impressive due to the complexity of the issues they attempt to solve. Although they do not answer the same questions, both authors provide adequate explanations as to how they think happiness can be reached. Both stress the importance of a worldwide happiness where the greatest numbers of people possible are happy. This idea is vitally important because it is so easy to be selfish and try to use others for ones own benefit. While Mill’s intentions are good, there is little practicality in his methods. When applied to simple scenarios, his utilitarianism approach works well. Consequently, in complex situations his methods seem impossible to implement. Aristotle, in a more general approach, defines what is truly good and how to attain happiness. Defining happiness, while helpful in some ways, is an impossible task to accomplish. There is no way to measure happiness because it is relative to the person who is experiencing it. Is a person really happier than another because they do more good or have a higher level of intellectual thinking? Who is to say that a person who cheats his way to success is not truly happy? Obviously, cheating isn’t right but there are people that are happy no matter what negative effect they have on others. Each human is unique in what makes him or her happy, it just takes getting to know oneself to find out how to achieve it.
Many philosophical thinkers have attempted to explain the question of what makes human beings happy and how this happiness can be spread to the greatest number of people. This issue is perhaps one of the most challenging to tackle because there are so many different ways for people to achieve happiness. Scholars such as John Stuart Mill and Aristotle attempt to point out universal truths by defining key aspects of happiness such as pleasure and attempting to do good. They both bring up valid, respectable ideas that tell us a lot about how to act so that all of mankind will benefit. However, there is some difficulty in applying these ideas in the real world because of how varying and unpredictable people may be.
Utilitarianism …show more content…
is generally defined as attempting to maximize total benefits while simultaneously decreasing all negative outcomes. John Stuart Mill, a proponent of this principle, believes that numerous people don’t understand utilitarianism because they think of utility as the opposite of pleasure. He says that utility is in fact pleasure without the presence of pain. He believes that utility is synonymous with the “Greatest Happiness Principle.” This principle, as Mill puts it, “holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure” (Mill, 1863). Mill is not arguing for everyone to pursue their own happiness with no regard for others. Reasonably, he states that actions that are moral are those that boost the total utility in the world. These actions should not only consider the happiness of people, but the happiness of all sentient beings (Mill, 1863). Anything that can feel should be taken into consideration according to Mill’s utilitarianism approach. This idea of maximizing total good is beneficial because it see’s every persons happiness as equally important. If everyone is attempting to act in a way that benefits the world then the world will undoubtedly be a better place to live in.
In theory, this idea seems fair and just, but in reality there are several complications that make it challenging to implement. Would rich, successful people really give up their lavish lifestyles to more evenly distribute their wealth to seemingly less happy people? Many of them would feel that they deserve the right to have these advantages because they worked so hard to earn them. Should property be redistributed evenly to provide more utility to people who are suffering because they are homeless? This would require drastic changes and cause civil unrest among wealthy landowners. Although these examples may seem extreme, in many cases this approach would require radical change that many would consider to be unfair and unnecessary. A more common situation is when a business must decide how to fairly distribute its profits. If a business is attempting to follow Mill’s utilitarian approach, then all sentient beings that the business could affect should receive the maximum amount of utility possible. However, it is difficult to determine how to distribute the profits so that maximum utility is achieved. The shareholders want their cut of money for investing in the company, while managers may want a bonus or to reinvest the profits in the company for growth. At the same time, the business could be polluting the surrounding communities and killing the wildlife in the area. Which party deserves more utility than the others? With so many different groups being affected, how can a manager measure the total happiness that will be attained after making his or her decision? In reality, the manager cannot know because happiness is very hard to quantify. A more logical and still ethical approach for the business is to follow Edward Freeman’s Stakeholder theory. While Freeman thinks that companies should create value for all those affected by the business, he acknowledges “trade-offs” when it comes to pleasing multiple groups of stakeholders (Freeman, 2011). These trade-offs are the sacrifices that a manager has to make when faced with multi-faceted business decisions. Although Freeman aims to avoid trade-offs, he recognizes that they are sometimes necessary when faced with a hard decision. He also sees stakeholders as interconnected, all relying on one another to create the maximum amount of value possible. Freeman makes a clear argument about how important maximizing value for all stakeholders is, while stating possible incidents that could occur within his theory. While Mill’s ideas are transparent, he makes it seem too easy to implement such vague measures of human pleasure to achieve a greater good. All in all, Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle is flawed because it fails to recognize the extreme difficulty in measuring the happiness of all sentient beings and creating a situation that maximizes happiness for everyone. Although there is some ambiguity in his first point, Mill provides some valuable insight on the different types of pleasure and their range of significance.
Mill believes that when deciding if an action is moral, one must weigh not only the quantity of the pleasure, but also the quality (Mill, 1863). Some pleasures are more intrinsically valuable than others and are therefore of higher quality. For example, working hard to get an excellent job is of higher quality than eating a hotdog when hungry. He notes the distinction between higher and lower quality pleasures and how to tell them apart. A person will always choose a higher quality pleasure over a different pleasure, regardless of the quantity, even if the higher quality pleasure is paired with discomfort (Mill, 1863). A person who is more sophisticated and achieves a high quality of pleasure will often suffer more because they are more aware of the limitations and suffering of the world. However, Mill believes that with the same access to both types of pleasure, it is unquestionable that people will choose the pleasure that will develop their higher capacities over those that do not. Mill illustrates his point by saying, "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied…” (Mill, 1863). This quote illustrates that it is more desirable to be intellectual and dissatisfied than ignorant and satisfied. Humans, even when dissatisfied, will always maintain their dignity over succumbing to a lower quality of life. Still, what if a person truly believes they are experiencing high quality of pleasure, but in reality they are the “satisfied fool.” Mill continues the previous quote and gives us insight on how the quality of pleasures can be judged by saying, “And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinions, it is because they only know their side of the question" (Mill, 1863). A fool and a pig, while satisfied, are experiencing only lower qualities of pleasure. Even if they both were to argue that they are experiencing high qualities of pleasure, they do not have the intellectual scope to realize the quality of their own pleasure. Neither the pig nor the fool has ever experienced high quality pleasure, so they are not able to judge the quality of the pleasure they experience. A person who has gone through a range of experiences of both higher and lower qualities of pleasure is best at judging the quality of a pleasure. Understanding these levels of pleasure and how to judge them is important when attempting to define what makes a person happy.
These ideas of quantifying and qualifying different levels of pleasure clear up some of the ambiguities from Mill’s first claim. Before it was unclear how a business could possibly follow the Greatest Happiness Principle with no real way to measure total happiness afterwards. With the concept of ranging qualities of pleasure, the greatest good for the greatest number of sentient beings refers to maximizing the highest quality of pleasure possible for these sentient beings. Nonetheless, combining Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle and the differing qualities of pleasure raises some concerns. He believes that an action is moral if it does the greatest good for the maximum amount of sentient beings. He also believes that no quantity of a lower pleasure could ever be more desirable than even a miniscule amount of higher pleasure (Mill, 1863). It seems impossible to think that no human being on earth would forego a little bit of intellectual or emotional pleasure in order to receive a great deal of physical pleasure. The idea of measuring pleasure is ambiguous as is, creating a grey area when it comes to judging its quantity and quality. Mill makes it seems as if there is a clear distinction when judging between the total benefit of a large amount of low quality pleasure and a small amount of high quality pleasure. Mill argues that our actions should not be at the expense of others pleasure, especially if it is high quality. It is impractical to expect a person give up all of his or her lower pleasures if these pleasures somehow caused someone else to lose a portion of their higher pleasures (Booher, 2014). How can one quantify and judge the amount of low level pleasure lost compared to the high level pleasure gained in this scenario? These discrepancies weaken Mill’s argument and make his ideas seem unrealistic for practical use in the real world. Aristotle provides a comprehensive view of happiness and ties it to universal truths. He also recognizes the differing opinions humans have about what makes them happy, while giving valuable insight on the supreme “Good” and what determines true happiness. In “Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle acknowledges that people do not always agree on what constitutes happiness.
However, he does say that everyone agrees that the supreme Good is happiness (Ross, 1998). Everyone’s actions are directed at some end that is considered good. Sometimes the action is a means to an end, rather than being an end in itself. This approach, which does not exemplify the supreme Good, is basically only doing good for its consequences. Other actions are ends in themselves and are pursued for their own intrinsic value. These actions are seen as the supreme Good and are necessary for our existence. Everyone should act in a way that, if all people acted in this way, everyone would be well off. For example, a person might tell a lie to reach a higher position at their company. If everyone lied just to get ahead then there would be no such thing as a promise. Without promises, we would most likely cease to exist. This is why everyone should strive to achieve the supreme Good so that we all benefit. Aristotle also talks about the different ways people see happiness. Some think that receiving honors and recognition is true happiness, but honors are actually the recognition of the good itself. He says that virtue and intelligence are only good because they result in happiness (Ross, 1998). He says that a human’s distinctive quality is their ability to rationally think. Aristotle stresses that the supreme good is reached when an activity is in accordance with virtue and of rational thought. It is almost always true that a virtuous, rational thinking person, who’s actions reflect the supreme Good, will be truly happy in their
life. The work of both Mill and Aristotle is very impressive due to the complexity of the issues they attempt to solve. Although they do not answer the same questions, both authors provide adequate explanations as to how they think happiness can be reached. Both stress the importance of a worldwide happiness where the greatest numbers of people possible are happy. This idea is vitally important because it is so easy to be selfish and try to use others for ones own benefit. While Mill’s intentions are good, there is little practicality in his methods. When applied to simple scenarios, his utilitarianism approach works well. Consequently, in complex situations his methods seem impossible to implement. Aristotle, in a more general approach, defines what is truly good and how to attain happiness. Defining happiness, while helpful in some ways, is an impossible task to accomplish. There is no way to measure happiness because it is relative to the person who is experiencing it. Is a person really happier than another because they do more good or have a higher level of intellectual thinking? Who is to say that a person who cheats his way to success is not truly happy? Obviously, cheating isn’t right but there are people that are happy no matter what negative effect they have on others. Each human is unique in what makes him or her happy, it just takes getting to know oneself to find out how to achieve it.