Aristotle views happiness from various perspectives. For instance, the science of politics is perceived to possess the highest good according to Nichomachean Ethics in book one, section two.
Aristotle notes that the attainment of the good for one man alone is, to be sure, a source of satisfaction; yet to secure it for a nation and for states is nobler and more divine. In order to be a bit reasonable and fair enough in his assertion, he apparently does not give too much attention to this claim because he later notes that happiness can be considered to be a destination on its own.
He also clarifies that the good of man is an activity of the soul in conformity with excellence or virtue . Hence, attaining happiness requires an individual to be virtuous and also be in good terms with others. This implies that happiness can be attained by living a life full of virtues. The latter statement is apparently sensible even when judged from various perspectives of happiness.
Nonetheless, section nine of the book injects a different view altogether when politics is correlated with happiness. He observes that our results also tally with what we said at the outset: for we stated that the end of politics is the best of ends; and the main concern of politics is to engender a certain character in the citizen and to make them good.
At this point, Aristotle seems to be offering a contradicting statement in comparison to his earlier assertion. For instance, how can safeguarding good for a country be a more gallant and divine undertaking if the highest good of an individual is to obtain happiness? The desire to make citizens to feel fine is the key role of the state.
Therefore, it is better to improve the state than secure the well being of an individual. In addition, common beliefs have also been presumed by Aristotle to be integral in the process of achieving happiness. He elucidates that there are several wise people who share certain ideological beliefs that eventually make them happy.
Whether such beliefs are formidable or not is a completely different concern altogether. He expounds by noting that the various belief systems may as well be dialectic in nature and therefore significant to just a small fragment of a given population. In this case, Aristotle tends to approach the concept of happiness according to the Socratics perspectives bearing in mind that there are myriads of questions that he tends to come up with in the common beliefs.
Finally, Aristotle brings out the significance of justice in achieving happiness by commenting that between friends there is no need for justice, but people who are just still need the quality of friendship; and indeed friendliness is considered to be justice in the fullest sense . Although Aristotles list of virtues does not contain the aspects of justice and friendship, he posits in book eight that justice is the most important virtue needed by an individual in order to attain happiness.
He adds that justice can be improved or enhanced in cases where good friendship prevails among people. Needless to say, Aristotle has managed to convince the readers of his work that justice should always prevail if individual happiness or the overall well being of a state is to be realized.
Happiness is the enjoyable and satisfying feeling or gratification of the soul coming up because of fortune or due to experiencing an auspicious occurrence of a given nature. Among the philosophers that have attempted to describe happiness are Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Epicurus, and Epictetus among others.
In this context, Gertrude, an upright woman, dedicated to taking care of people in need by volunteering to various charities, is happy. However, she has her own share of problems. She lost several close people in her life, viz. children, husband, and friends.
Why be Happy?
Looking at Gertrudes life, she seems that she has nothing to be happy with because she has always suffered throughout her life loosing noteworthy people to death or to someone else or something dreadful. The deaths are mysterious and cannot be well explained. She seems to have been exceptionally unlucky having lost her husband to a close friend. When one commits her life to a husband, it is an investment of a lifetime, and an investment of emotions and trust.
She is supposed to be suffering depression, disappointment, and dissatisfaction in life because of her constant deaths she sees throughout her life. However, she seems to attain satisfaction in what she does, her volunteer job causes her satisfaction that surpasses the disappointment that her misfortunes brings.
While suffering grief because of death of close people in her life, Gertrude may have found solace and maintained sanity by adhering to the teachings of the famous Greek Philosopher Epictetus (Agurruza 57). According to his counsel, self-control, and fundamental acquiescence to the universes willpower and unresponsiveness to the physical world, Gertrude fights stoically by offering her help to those who are suffering and eventually get honor and wining love of the people she helps.
In the modern world, the word stoicism is synonymous with unemotional or getting detached to stressful physical world situations (Agurruza 57). The theme of such the mode of life is dont worry, be happy . Serenity of mind to Gertrude is found by accepting things that are beyond her control and seeking the strength and courage to change things that can be changed like cloth the naked, feed the hungry, and provide shelter to the homeless.
Epicurus shares same sentiments as Epictetus. Epicurean describes a life of dedication to pleasure-seeking pleasure, comfort, and sumptuous enjoyment (Agurruza 58). However, another notable viewpoint is that the pleasure seeking does not have to be materialistic or bodily pleasure seeking but instead contentment for the soul. The ataraxia, describing no disturbance is pertinent and hence epicurean ensures individual work to stay away from worldly destructions (Evangeliou 97).
The same way, Gertrude could be happy because giving and helping people in her charities bring satisfaction to the soul. Maybe she has decided to look at death as earthly thing, which just destructs her lifestyle of dedicated help. Note that Epicuruss theory on materialism leads him to downplay the implication of death. He writes that the death has no meaning to the wise.
Aristotle is famous for the Nicomacchean Ethics in which he suggested that, everyones activities and dealings are aimed at some good that conclude the pursuit of happiness, which is the ultimate goal (Evangeliou 97). In Greek, happiness is a translation of Eudemonia, which also means excellence. As a result, happiness was likened to virtuous living where a person engages in satisfying activities, which bring pleasure.
Gertrude realized there is a reason attached to her dedication to helping others to fulfill her natural end she is oriented. Virtue is aligned to helping others in this context; virtuous acts mean doing the right things intentionally and happily. Aristotle defines happiness as being able to achieve through a lifetime all the goods, leading to perfection of human nature (Evangeliou 99).
Aquinas just like Aristotle base their theory of happiness on the fact that humans lives for a good ending, the eudemonia (Cahn and Markie 128). Accordingly, Aquinas described goodness as the force leading people to do selfless things. Aquinas, however, believed that people should seek for divine guidance from God who is the creator of the entire world. His motivation is the main meaning of life. Aquinas believed in humans ability to reason, and Virtue came as a habit (Cahn and Markie 125).
To attain happiness, one needs to follow Gods plan as he has the eternal law. Since human derive reason from the creator, they share the same natural law (Evangeliou 105). By helping the needy, Gertrude finds soul satisfaction and hence joy to her soul, which could be the highest form of happiness. This comes regardless of the fact that her children have bad fate. One, the serial killer is sentenced to death, while the other was struck and killed by a meteor. She should be grieving and even depressed or unhappy.
Plato describes happiness as a complex process as it is based on metaphysics presumptions that are hazy and beyond the normal realm of understanding. However, he maintained virtue based ethics like Aristotle (Cahn and Markie 125).
Even though her husband leaves her, she has to do the morally right things like forgive and forget then continue to pursue her happiness. She cannot force her husband to stay, but she can help the poor get food. She cannot stop death, as it is inevitable; however, she can surely ensure that the lives of the people in need are better taken care of by her generosity.
Works Cited
Agurruza, Jesus. Cycling Philosophy for Everyone: A Philosophical Tour De Force. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2010. Print.
Cahn, Steven, and Peter Markie. Ethics: History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues. New York: Oxford University Press. 2011. Print.
Indira lives a solitary life of study. Although she is friendly, she does not have the close friends. Many people may say that the girl cannot be happy continuing to live in the same frames. However, is it correct to claim that her life is unhappy? The child who lost her parents did not five up and started to develop herself.
She finds her inspiration in the languages and other subjects and, obviously, the girl knows that education is the best solution of solving a number of problems and difficulties that she may face during the life. According to Plato and Aristotle, knowledge is the most significant value that can be and should be achievement by everyone.
Plato views education with lenses of value and puts enormous emphasis on the need for a regime to promote good education. He believes that skills have to be identified and nurtured by the state in order to find meaning in its people. This is the strength of Plato as he argues out on the power of education.
This can only be achieved through proper education that would allow beneficiaries to become better people in the wider society. Ferrari says, &if guardians are well educated, and grow up into men of sound judgment, they will have no difficulty in seeing all things for themselves& (Ferrari 116). Plato values inherent talent among children and chooses to identify each talent through equal opportunities to have education.
In his turn, Aristotle explored several disciplines, setting pace for the understanding of important aspects of human life such as education. Despite the fact that only fragments of his work on education can be traced, there is no doubt that his contribution played a key role. From his early works, Aristotle considered education to be central and measured the fulfillment of an individuals life with education level. According to Moore, education was relevant as soon as a child was able to understand what was being said (Moore 76).
At this age, servants were assigned to different children before being sent to teachers who would teach them how to read and write. From this early age of development, Aristotle believed that it was an opportunity to harden children by not pampering them with material items like shoes, different clothes and excess food. He believed that children brought up under such situations would comfortably labor to survive when situations demanded in future.
In his philosophical approach to education, Aristotle further affirmed that education must follow the partition of the soul. Normally, the soul has several partitions; one part is divided into reason and further subdivided into contemplative and practical parts. The other part of the soul usually lacks reason though it can listen properly. The preferred end is found in that part of the soul that is better, has better reason and better actions. For Aristotle, knowledge can be found in the different aspects of human life.
He considered education in broadest sense. Every event, every experience affects human education as well as the science. Thus, according to Aristotle, the state had a major responsibility in achieving societal wellness through having goals and a clear path leading to the realization of such goals. In this context, the main goal identified is happiness, which is intertwined with exercising of virtues in the absence of any form of qualification. Happiness is important and needed by everybody.
However, people have different abilities to acquire this happiness depending on existing factors that may impede easy access to fortune or nature. Additionally, failure to have happiness could result from use of wrong methodology or failure to seek it when one has the ability to attain (Moore 76).
According to Aristotle, common ills of fortune of diseases include diseases and poverty, which have to be combated by a regime in order to guarantee its people happiness and wellness absolutely. The similar vies can be found in the work of Plato. Although Plato emphasized the significance of mathematics, he also indicated an importance of physical education as a way personal development.
Therefore, analyzing the works of Plato and Aristotle, it is wrong to conclude that Indiras life is unhappy. Indira who studies different subjects and does physical exercises is a great example of the theories of Plato and Aristotle. As the girl comprehends the significance of knowledge, she is able to develop herself, improve her life and achieve the outstanding results.
Perhaps, she is unable to have such simple childish life with the numerous games and entertainments, she dedicates herself for studying and in any case the result of such work will be outstanding. And obviously the girl already understands this idea as she does not spend her time trying to find the childish entertainments and to make the acquaintance of a number of friends.
Thereby, it is possible to clam that Indira is a happy girl who has an ability to extend her knowledge and improve the life. However, on the other hand, it is necessary to mention that such way of life cannot be appropriate for every child.
Works Cited
Ferrari, Giovanni. The Republic. London: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Print.
Moore, John. Aristotle and Xenophon on democracy and oligarchy. California: University of California Press, 1975. Print.
The truth can simply be described as a statement of fact. The quest for knowledge and the need to satisfy curiosity makes people crave for the truth. However, the truth is sometimes ugly or bitter and may be dissatisfying rather than satisfying. This paper presents a philosophical position that postulates that the truth is greater than happiness. The truth is sometimes ugly and may cause a person to become unhappy. However it is always better to find out the truth even if knowing the truth about something will cause someone unhappiness.
People seek the truth to gain knowledge and it is possible that their happiness will depend on their access to this knowledge. The truth presents knowledge to a person through a statement of fact. While the truth may make someone unhappy, the inherent satisfaction of gaining knowledge and becoming aware of the actual facts about a phenomenon, entity, person, or self, is achieved and any possible unhappiness will likely fade after sometime. However knowledge is not gained when the truth is withheld, and unhappiness becomes evident. Individuals are usually eager to satisfy their curiosity, and embrace the option of knowing the truth over the option of being apparently happy without the truth. The absence of truth brings only apparent happiness because people will continue to seek the truth no matter how content they appear.
People generally believe that all problems may be resolved. Therefore, people will rather be exposed to the truth and live with the perceptual unhappiness than live in apparent happiness without knowledge of the truth. In a nutshell, once peoples curiosities are not satisfied, they will be unhappy. Concealing the truth from them, no matter how ugly it is, will certainly lead to unhappiness since their curiosity will not be satisfied. The only way the truth will be concealed and still lead to happiness is when the truth is substituted with a lie (or a fake truth).
No matter how bitter or sweet the truth is, it is much healthier than happiness. Anybody may be happy, if they become aware that happiness is not precisely dependent on their external environment, their strength, their ability, their style, their beauty, etc. When the truth is hurting, it is possible for a person to identify what is wrong, and make possible efforts to improve the situation, character, behavior, company, or whatever the subject is. What is more important is not how one feels but how one becomes. If an ugly truth is substituted for a lie, then a person may only achieve an escape route, instead of true happiness. The reality remains before the person and it will eventually emerge and overcome the person except they face it.
It is obvious that people value happiness over the truth. The truth may contain much sadness or happiness. When the truth is concealed, the potential happiness that is concealed remains an illusion. However, false happiness supersedes no happiness, particularly when the false happiness does not contain positive hope. If a person takes the bitter truth seriously, then the person does not experience any form of happiness. A lie may console a person if the lie is about something positive. Nevertheless people eventually lose their joy when they discover that they believed in a lie.
This essay aims to analyze Happiness, what makes happiness special to people, the meaning of it and the essence of it. This essay will pose and attempt to answer the following questions; is happiness good just for what it is? Is a happy life the same thing as meaningful life? Are all things considered good because they bring happiness? What is well being? Happiness is a state that even if shared, the experience of it may be differently perceived and interpreted by the affected individuals (Ross, par, 1. futilitycloset.com).
Meaning of Happiness
Happiness is a pleasant psychological state. States of joy, satisfaction, empowerment, fulfillment and pleasure can be described as happy state. Also having a positive outlook towards life can be happiness.
Happiness can also be described as a good condition of your emotional life as a whole while also taking into account how you feel about it. Happiness can also be described as pleasure. The various definitions of happiness are supported by various theories.
There are a few theories that seek to explain the state of happiness. The emotional state theory describes happiness as an overall fine state of your emotional life also taking into account how you feel about it. Happiness is pleasure according to the utilitarian moral theory and the modern economic theory. A morally good choice is defined by promoting happiness whereas a morally wrong produces the opposite effect.
There are some objective traits of happiness that mean more to us than just happiness in its totality (Arete, par, 2. philwiki.wetpaint.com/page/Nozick+On+Happiness).
The direction of happiness
Here we are asked to consider two separate lives with equal amounts of happiness with one, lets call it life (a) constantly sliding up a gradient over a period of time to ever increasing happiness. On the other hand we have life (b); this life instead of sliding up into increasing amounts of happiness is sliding down a gradient away from it.
When asked to choose between the two most of us would choose life (a) over life (b). This simple example clearly illustrates that happiness alone is not all satisfactory for there is something other than happiness that matters to us (Arete, par, 2. philwiki.wetpaint.com/page/Nozick+On+Happiness; Nozick, p.100).
Everybody wants to grow, and life (a) is a growing life where hopes of something better flourish. This is better than the Hopelessness and sense of loss experienced in life (b).
Life (a) works its way up to happiness from the bottom; in essence this means that every day of every week seems better as opposed to life (b) where every day of every week seems to get worse (Arete, par, 2. philwiki.wetpaint.com/page/Nozick+On+Happiness).
Pleasure seems to play a big part in happiness and there are pleasures of the mind, emotion and body. Pleasure is something that is valued for the good feeling it brings/ felt quality, (Nozick, p. 103; Brandon, par, 2. degreesofclarity.com)
The experience machine
If a machine was created that could recreate ones own experiences in mind, when in the machine you would completely believe that the experiences are real. You could program the machine any way you wanted to make the experiences as realistic as possible. While in this case your life would be very good.
Would you spend the rest of your life inside the machine? Every experience would be the same as the one outside the machine. It is note worthy that such a machine would make a great toy but the reality is that no one would be willing to spend the rest of their life in a machine while missing out on the real world. Now the experience machine reveals that the feel of things does not determine the quality of life.
The reality Principle
No matter how real the experiences of the reality machine are, they are just fantasies
This therefore means that we seek not to only to feel like this and that but also want to be in a certain way. We seek to be defined by our reality (Nozick, p. 106).
Lessons from the two thought experiments
From the two thought experiments it is easy to see that happiness isnt something tangible that can be measured. In the first experiment, where two people are given happiness in equal measure, with one walking steadily away from his happiness while the other is steadily moving towards it. What matters isnt the amount of happiness here its the duration of it.
Nobody wants to lose a good thing and since happiness is good it doesnt matter how much of it you had what matters is its longevity, and from the experience machine the lesson we learn is that although we want lasting happiness, it should also be of substance. Day dreams dont make memorable memories.
A good example of this can be taken from a good dream, when dreaming every thing you experience is as real as can be and you more often than not cant even tell if its a dream, on waking up most of us would rather that dream be a reality than go back to sleep and dream again.
Simply put; we love good things happiness and we want to stay perpetually happy, in a reality that we understand and appreciate, one not of our creation where things, experiences, can be manipulated by us and thus have no real value.
What is happiness?
Happiness is born of emotion, a feeling of positive goodness whose cause is indefinable as the cause of happiness varies among individuals.
Happiness is also an experience that triggers a pleasurable emotional response in an individual. Happiness cannot be stage managed or extracted so to speak from an individual i.e. there is no universal recipe for happiness, happiness is subjective. Seeking pleasure is a means of seeking happiness but that doesnt necessarily mean that pleasure is happiness and the experience machine is a pleasure machine.
Is a happy life a meaningful life?
There are various definitions of happiness and as such happiness is subjective/user defined so to speak. The theories that exist and the experiments trying to show us something about ourselves all have something in common, they all show that in one way or another, happiness is very important to us. Bearing this in mind, it is safe to say that a happy life is actually a meaningful life to the person concerned.
The three forms of happiness
There are three forms of happiness. The first is where you become happy because something that you care about has happened. It doesnt matter whether these good things are happening to us directly so the happiness it brings is not complete happiness (Nozick, p. 108). The second happiness is a general consensus about the goodness of your life at that moment (Nozick, p. 111).The third form of happiness involves happiness as regards your life in general.
Conclusion
These theories on happiness are very well explained and with good examples that are thought provoking and practical. Happiness however is not something that can be measured by any other than the individual that experiences it. It is a good thing and that is why it is so important us.
The example of the direction of happiness where happiness is supposedly equal isnt exactly accurate. A million dollars might mean different things to different persons and the experience and joy/happiness it brings will not be measured the same way by both persons. It is true of course that the one who worked his way to the million dollars will be more appreciative of it than the one who won it in a lottery.
In the experience machine example; it is true that most of us want to remain firmly in the scope of reality. But if practical reasons hinder the path to universal happiness then this machine would open a door for us to escape our reality and immerse ourselves in fantasy, for it is pleasure that we seek.
Works Cited
Arete.Nozick on happiness, N.p., n.d. Web. <PhilWiki.wetpaint.com/page/Nozick+On+Happiness>
Brandon, Oto. Nozick, Happiness, and the Experience Machine. N.p., n.d. Web.
Nozick, Robert. The examined life: philosophical meditations. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989. Print.
Ross, Marin An idlers miscellany of compendious amusements. N.P. 4th March, 2011. Web. < Futility Closet.com>
Thesis statement: Aristotle discussed much about happiness in society and how it could be achieved. This paper examines whether the ideas of Aristotle can be achieved through application of Friedmans ideas on corporate social responsibility.
It is established that Aristotles ideas are compatible to those of Friedman.
Analogy of Aristotles ideas to those of Friedman
Aristotle is one of the classical philosophers who tried to understand society at his time. Most philosophers analyzed social, economic and political events. Just like Plato, Aristotle was trying to conceptualize justice in society by trying to understand leadership patterns.
He was much concerned about who should rule in society. He also evaluated factors that facilitated happiness. Aristotle observed that justice, which is achieved through the rule of law, is a human virtue that has to be observed and treated with high esteem.
Aristotle was a close friend of Plato but he did not believe in socialism where men shared property in society, including women. He also differed with Plato over who should rule.
While Plato argued that the best should rule in society, having attained high education, Aristotle argued that the rule of law should always be embraced. Aristotle believed that the rule of men would not guarantee better governance in society. To Aristotle, the rule of law should always be given precedence.
In the same line of thinking, Friedman argues that corporate social responsibility is mere propaganda exercised by multinational corporations and organizations whose main agenda is to further selfish interests (Friedman, 1970).
The philosopher observes that most businesses purport to support free enterprise by arguing that organizations and corporations are not simply concerned about profit making but are also keen on promoting desirable social values.
In other words, business executives assume that corporations have social conscience since they promote social services such as employment, equality and environmental conservation. By doing this, huge corporations and organizations would be promoting socialism, which is completely impossible according to Friedman.
It is from this analysis that Friedman observes that only individuals, who might be business proprietors or executives, have social responsibilities. Friedman underscores the fact that businesses cannot exist without the owners or executives (Friedman, 1970).
In this regard, the owner of the business has a direct responsibility to employees. Employees are required to operate according to the desires and wishes of the directors of the company. Friedman observes that a conflict of interest emerges between the owner of the business and employees.
The owner wishes to maximum profits while employees demand better pay and advanced working conditions. Both workers and employees are guided by the law and ethical values. The owner of the business must exercise openness, fairness and must operate according to the set laws.
Theory of Happiness
Aristotles theory of happiness can be achieved through the application of Friedmans ideas because happiness in society is only guaranteed through the rule of law. Each person must follow societal rules and regulations irrespective of his or her position in society.
Friedman postulates that both employees and employers must live according to certain laws that guarantee normalcy and constancy in society (Friedman, 1970). According to Aristotle, man must live within the constitution in case happiness is to be achieved.
In his works on politics, Aristotle puts forth arguments to support his position that man without the constitution is a beast (Chappell, 2006). The constitution has some advantages that make it strong as opposed to other forms of leadership styles.
The constitution is consensus based implying that it is a contract between the governed and the governor. Both parties are willing participants meaning that the governor cannot participate in any activity that runs contrary to the will of the governed.
In other words, the administrator cannot be engaged in any incident related to gross misconduct. The will of the people shapes both the policy and the actions of the ruler. In fact, Aristotle concurs with Friedman by suggesting that the governor is a manifestation of what the people want.
Both the governor and the governed must adhere to the rule of law because without the agreement corporations according to Friedman and the city-state according to Aristotle are ungovernable.
Moreover, Both Aristotle and Friedman observe that the constitution represents public bond and public will. This implies that the constitution makes everyone in society equal, which would further guarantee happiness.
The constitution does not discriminate between the mighty and the subjects according to Friedman and between the King and the populace according to Aristotle. In the eyes of the law, all are equal. Therefore, the constitution epitomizes the will of the people that is, the general will since it ignores individual will.
Individual will is selfish, perverted and mainly concerned with the pursuit of the earthly. The ideas of Aristotle coincide with those of Friedman because the law guarantees order in society. It is the same law that must be the guiding principle for all organizations and governments since the law will never fail.
Man can easily fail however good intentional he or she might be. In this line of thinking, the two philosophers are against democratic leadership.
Democracy according to Aristotle is the government of the unfit because it can easily lead to the tyranny of the multitude. Democracy is an emotive type of system because it does not promote happiness in society and in organizations.
Aristotle and Politics
The main contribution of Aristotle is how politics influences an individuals happiness. Aristotle was of the view that politics make people happy (Schollmeier, 1994). According to Aristotle, beatitude can only be achieved when people are engaged in political activities.
He argues that man is only complete when he or she participates in political activities because man is both a social and political animal. This captures the universality of politics since it is ubiquitous. According to Aristotle, politics is the master of all arts since it is concerned with the end in itself.
Being a biologist, he was dismissive of biology for it concerns itself more with the process as opposed to the end. In other words, biology is always concerned with the search for a solution to a problem afflicting society. According to Aristotle, this is not the end. He views politics from the premise that the end justifies the means.
It is in line with this that he dismisses economics for the dilemma with economics is the search for wealth but not happiness. Equally, the study of military science/strategy cannot give man happiness since achieving victory in the battlefield does not guarantee happiness instead emptiness prevails.
Friedman argued in the same line with Aristotle as regards to politics. In organizations, many politics goes on in order to achieve self-interests. Politics make people to distinguish between the two sides of extremes.
Being too good is negative just as being too bad is negative. Politics makes a man to choose the middle path as opposed to the extremes. Aristotle argued that people should concentrate on political issues since everything is achieved through politics.
This is a central argument to the ideas of Aristotle and underscores his idea that politics is a centrifugal force. All other activities revolve around politics. Friedman observes that corporations participate in some form of politics to achieve their desired goals and objectives. This is usually done through promotion of social responsibility.
Businesspersons utilize social responsibility to win peoples confidence in order to make sales and increase profits. For instance, Friedman argues that a chief executive officer cannot be influenced by the public to reduce the prices of products. This would be considered a serious violation of the companys rules and regulations.
In case a private administrator imposes taxes to people in order to use them in social responsibilities, such an administrator ceases to be a private employee and turns out to be a civil servant.
Friedman tries to argue that the doctrine of social responsibility is not real in many corporations instead it is pure politics. It is carried out to satisfy the wishes of the ruling elites, who are mostly politicians with an influence in the market.
Conclusion
Just like Friedman, Aristotle believes that a just society is happier than unjust society. Justice can only be achieved if all men can be put under the law, for it is the law regardless of its nature that removes the beast character in human beings.
Aristotle concurs with Friedmans ideas that law in general is the equivalent of reason or rationality because it governs mans behavior. In other words, law makes people to avoid evil, which can destroy the very survival of society.
References
Chappell, T. (2006). Values and Virtues: Aristotelianism in Contemporary Ethics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970.
Schollmeier, P. (1994). Other Selves: Aristotle on Personal and Political Friendship. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Life has always been a mystery to people. The humankind has been trying to unlock this secret throughout its entire existence. However, there has been very little success so far.
Still, a number of theories concerning life and principles of life have been spawned. One of these theories is utilitarianism. The key principle of Utilitarianism according to its founder, John Mill (2), is that the right action must trigger the happiness of all those involved. However, utilitarianism is based not only on the given principle, but also on the so-called theory of life. Exploring the given phenomenon, one can get a little closer to discovering the meaning of life.
It is a well-known fact that Mills key concepts are based on the so-called theory of life. The latter presupposes that people should strive for pleasure and drive the experience of pain to minimum. Alican (1) put it in the following way: Pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends. At the given point, however, one might notice that Mills theory has a number of things in common with the traditional postulates of Hedonism. According to Alican (1), In essence, then, Mills proof is an attempt to establish a theory of value, ethical hedonism.
Indeed, if considering Mills theory of life, one must admit that it presupposes following certain ethical principles when enjoying life. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that Mills theory borrows a lot from Hedonism. Moreover, Mills theory of life is practically based on Hedonism. If taking away the moral principles and the idea that any action should be aimed at both the satisfaction of self and the satisfaction of others, one will get the Hedonist principles.
However, Mills theory involves another arguable and rather controversial element apart from the similarities with Hedonism. To be more exact, Mill denies the link between ethical theory and moral obligation. To start with, Mill (2) asks the readers, Does the belief that moral obligation has its seat outside the mind make the feeling of it too strong to be got rid of? In the given question, Mill draws the line between the moral principles and the human mind. Hence, Mill (2) questions the link between the moral and the ethical. Further on, Mill (2) explains:
It is not necessary, for the present purpose, to decide whether the feeling of duty is innate or implanted. Assuming it to be innate, it is an open question to what objects it naturally attaches itself; for the philosophic supporters of that theory are now agreed that the intuitive perception is of principles of morality, and not of the details.
Thus, Mill specifies the difference between the moral and the ethical. Mill believes that moral is what is considered right by the society. Meanwhile, ethical, in Mills understanding, is what an individual believes to be right. Therefore, Mill also draws the line between the social and the personal. Hence, the theory of life also separates an individual from the society.
Personally, I believe that Mill has the point. On the one hand, ethics and moral obligation are often considered the same thing. On the other hand, they often seem a mile away from each other. To demonstrate my point of view, it is necessary to consider a specific instance. For example, if an extremely poor person steals something vitally important, like medicine or food, for someone just as poor, a moral dilemma appears.
A moral obligation presupposes that the thief should be imprisoned. From an ethical standpoint, however, the thief had a noble thing in mind when stealing which means that the thief should be released. Therefore, Mill seems right about the difference between ethical theory and moral dilemma. What seems morally logical is not always ethically correct. There are different courses of actions for the case above.
However, in either case, the conflict between the moral and the ethical will be there. An individual might consider it ethical to release the prisoner. However, according to the laws of society, it is immoral to let the criminal go. While some people consider that the given theory approached hedonism, Mill claimed that it was not. According to Mill, hedonism does not focus on the quality of the pleasure.
On the contrary, in Mills theory, quality is the defining issue. Even though John Mills theory has been studied fully, the meaning of life still remains obscure. It is worth giving credit to Mill, though. With the help of his theory, he managed to develop a completely new basis for peoples relationships. Moreover, Mill managed to provide an ethical basis for his theory.
At the same time the latter does not seem preachy, which is worth appreciating. Mill emphasized the significance of a human life once again. However, he made it in a new and subtle way. The philosopher created the theory that allowed to establish completely new type of human relationships. Unselfish and aimed at everyones satisfaction, utilitarianism attitudes seem a very peculiar idea.
References
Alican NF. Mills principle of utility: a defense of John Stuart Mills notorious proof. Atlanta, GA: Rodopi; 1994. 240 p.
The definition of happiness varies from one person to another depending on the context and aim of the definition. Therefore, Happiness is defined by various people in different contexts, but its main meaning is retained. This paper is going to analyze various views of Happiness from different people.
People exhibit three forms of life, which comprise a life of political affairs, life of study, and life of joy. Each of these lives has a parallel amount of happiness. Even though it requires some external fortunes and social interactions, a persons happiness entails excellence and independence (Hughes 52).
Shakespeare suggests that happiness is determined by social security and acceptance. This is represented by characters from all diverse backgrounds whose happiness is determined by their social relationships with others. Aristotle appreciates that joy depends on a persons purpose and the uppermost good that he hopes to attain. The truest happiness arrives through the task of a persons highest function: the utilization of the coherent rule of mind (Hughes 57).
Based on this principle, Aristotle classifies varied types of lives and illustrates the impending happiness each can provide. The first one is The universal run of individuals and the crudest, which identifies happiness with a life of joy. The second one is The civilized and vigorous men , which gets joy in the life of political affairs based on reputation. A thoughtful life gives a person the highest amount of happiness because it involves life, which is strongly minded by actions. This contrasts with sheer possession. Aristotle argues that since the achievement of any person is determined by the accomplishment of his goals, then the happiness of a person can simply be achieved through the accomplishment of his goals (Raymond 2013).
Aristotle unreservedly distinguishes joy on the maximum order level as a position achieved through the inner improvement of an individual, rather than the social improvement. A person is by character, a political and a social creature; therefore self-effectiveness cannot be defined in orientation to self-loneliness. Aristotle understands joy on the uppermost level as essentially independent (Hughes 67).
Aristotle criticizes the ordinary run of persons who select the life of joy, which they capriciously obtain and lose. Although he views the political life from the perspective of prominence on nobility and excellence, Aristotle judges it as too trivial as it depends on those who bestow it, rather than those who obtain it. The uppermost happiness is achieved internally and independently by the implications of intellectual growth putting into effect the cogent part of the mind. Regarding selfsufficiency as the main component of happiness, moral good is a persons ownership, which cannot be taken away from him without effort (Raymond 2013).
According to Shakespeare, the happiness of a person depends on the way he or she perceives his or her social position and acceptance. For instance, Roderigo hangs around for the love of Desmonena. However, Roderigos incapability to win Desmonenas love results in frustrations. Casino desires to regain the conviction of Othello, but he cannot look up the lost honor since he fails to identify Lagoss operations. Although Othello obtains happiness through Desdemona, his happiness was found short-lived when his social insecurity outweighed his mind and untangled his marital happiness. People need the feeling of social reception before attaining pleasure (Raymond 2013).
According to Utilitarianism, Benthams moral theory postulates that human happiness is just the attainment of joy and avoidance of pain. He further argues that the hedonistic value of a persons action is simply evaluated by considering the intensity of pleasure felt, the time that felt pleasure ends, the sureness and quickness of the presentation of action, and the possibility to create collateral gains and avoidance of the collateral injuries. Considering all these matters, a net value of every action for any person impacted arrives (Kemerling 2011).
According to the principle of utility, the happiness of a community is the sum of every persons interests. Moral responsibility is defined based on the uppermost cheerfulness of the maximum number of individuals who are impacted by the act of a task. Punishing a criminal is a correct method of combating a crime because it hampers the possible results of the action. Therefore, actions are right relative to the encouragement of happiness, and wrong as they have tendencies to create the opposite of happiness, which is pain (Kemerling 2011).
The economics of joy donates an aspect to the behavior of economics that lifts queries about its value in the scrutiny of the public rule. Habituation happiness is the actuality that the reported happiness of people relapses to the bottom level. Behavioral economists define projection bias as the tendency of people to mistake the present situations for permanence; for instance, purchasing a lot of food during hunger. Habituation means that joy does not react to durable changes, and the projection bias means that pleasure reacts excessively to impermanent changes (Arik 2012).
Conclusion
Happiness is the eventual end and purpose of human life. It is neither a pleasure nor a virtue. It is the application of virtue. Happiness cannot be realized till an individual dies. Hence it is a target and not an impermanent situation. Happiness is the excellence of a persons nature. Because a person is a cogent animal, human pleasure is determined by the application of his reason. Happiness needs intellectual meditation because this is the final realization of a persons normal abilities.
Works Cited
Arik, Lavinson. Happiness, Behavioral, Economics and Public Policy. New York, Henry Bolt and Co., 2012.
Hughes, Gerald. Philosophy Guidebook to Aristotle on Ethics. London: Routledge, 2001.Print.
Kemerling, Garth. Pages of Philosophy. Utilitarianism. New York: MacMillan, 2011.
Raymond, Bradford. Happiness and Social Acceptance . Aristotle and Shakespeare. 2013: n. pg.
The research conducted in the different countries during which people were asked how satisfied they were with their lives clearly indicated the existence of a non-linear relationship between the amount of money and the size of happiness; if the money allows you to get out of the dire straits and enjoy the comfort of the middle class, it is possible that you will be happier; but it is unlikely you will experience something like this when there are millions and tens of millions dollars on your account.
Upon getting used to the money, wealthy people take it for granted; acquisition of goods does not bring as much content as it did, while the abundance of choices becomes tiresome. In this case, the amount of money does not affect the enjoyment of life; the general content with life depends on the various factors, such as health, family, the ability to take pleasure in ordinary activities, and so on. Although money can spare people from many problems, it cannot buy happiness.
Wealthy and poor can be equally unhappy
Money itself is not able to make someone happy or unhappy. Monetary means only afford the opportunities, and these opportunities allow us to build the life that we want. Nevertheless, happiness is an inner state, and it does not depend on material wealth. One can be happy both with money and without it. Wealth itself is not able to bring happiness into your life; neither can poverty.
Money cannot buy health, love, and friendship
Although money allows purchasing medications and high-quality health services, it cannot buy health. Buying a comfortable bed will not buy healthy sleep. By paying money to a person, you will get an employee, but you cannot pay someone to be your friend. A big bright house can be bought, but the warmth of the family and the domestic hearth cannot.
People from wealthy families can graduate from any educational institution, even the most prestigious ones, but they cannot buy intelligence. With the money, you can have access to a variety of activities, but you cannot buy friendship and love. To summarize, the consumption of durables, charity, personal care, food, health care, vehicles, and housing is not significantly associated with happiness (DeLeire & Kalil, 2010).
Earning money takes all of your time
Since money is time, wealthy people usually are quite busy. They spend all of their time working or supervising the work of their employees. Due to such a lifestyle, many of them do not have a family. If they are lucky to acquire one, it is very likely they will not have enough time to spend with their spouses and children.
The material benefits cannot be compared with the neglection the children experience when spending time with their nannies and private tutors instead of their parents. To justify themselves, parents tend to buy off with expensive toys and gadgets. Instead of family celebrations, trips to the country, and time happily spent together, and the children get new phones, tablet PCs, and branded clothing.
From the side, it may look like happiness, but the child, no matter how contemporary and tech-savvy he/she was, would be much happier taking a walk in the park with its parents. According to most economists, in order to be successful in the future, the childrens human capital requires the investment of both money and time (Mayer, 1997).
Money allows you to have what you want
Money is a means with which people can afford high-quality food, medical care, as well as gym and fitness club membership. All of this helps them maintain their physical health. At the availability of funds, individuals can evolve intellectually, buy the necessary books, and earn a degree in the best universities around the world. With the necessary funds, people have the opportunity to travel, visit any places on the planet, get inspired, and develop the way they wish.
Money increases confidence
Money helps stimulate emotions that lead to positive results. For example, new clothes often make people more confident. The acquired self-confidence can help get the desired position, make a good bargain, or just add a little bit of abandon to your manner of walking. Money can buy fresh impressions and equipment, ones favorite hobby.
Because of this, an individual develops his/her creativity and achieves balance. For those who are concerned about security, the availability of money on the bank account helps to gain confidence in the future, because these funds can be used to cover the unexpected expenses such as car repairs or an emergency medical care for a family member.
Financial stability can consolidate the marriage
There are various examples when financial problems destroy the family. This statement was once again confirmed by Jeffrey Dew in his 2009 work, where he showed the relationship between financial problems and divorce. According to Dews research, couples with no assets were about 70 percent more likely to divorce over a three-year period compared to couples with assets of $10,000 (Dew, 2009).
What is more, being single and not having a partner casts many people down and drives them to despair; needless to say, a comfortable partnership becomes a source of happiness. In this case, money plays an important role in creating and maintaining good relations in marriage while minimizing stress. One can afford to hire a nanny, a charwoman, or other household staff in order to spend more time with the family and avoid being distracted by minor issues.
Money can only buy happiness up to a certain point
Despite this, one cannot just buy happiness itself. The work of Angus Deaton, the expert at Princeton University, and Daniel Kahneman showed that despite the fact that rich people have a more positive attitude to their life, there is no direct relationship between wealth and the emotional state of contentment (Kahneman & Deaton, 2010).
In addition, they found that the more significant performance measures of daily emotions are health, loneliness, smoking, but not money. The researchers argue that money can buy satisfaction but not happiness; however, the lack of sufficient funds has a negative influence on both.
Despite the fact that in the majority of cases, people associate happiness with material prosperity, it is the satisfaction with the financial situation, rather than happiness, that they feel. Although money has the capability of increasing ones confidence, consolidating the matrimony as a result of financial stability and providing various opportunities for the development, it cannot buy true love, health, friendship, and faith of the people.
Sometimes, earning money may take all of ones time, preventing the individual from building a relationship or spending time with its family and friends. In addition, money is not a guarantee of happiness, since people both with low and high income may be equally happy or unhappy.
References
DeLeire, T., & Kalil, A. (2010). Does consumption buy happiness? Evidence from the United States. International Review Of Economics, 57(2), 163-176. Web.
Dew, J. (2009). Bank on It: Thrifty Couples are the Happiest. Web.
Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A. (2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences, 107(38), 16489-16493. Web.
Mayer, S. (1997). What Money Cant Buy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Every human being is seeking ways to live a happy and fulfilling life. People may be happy when their state most closely corresponds to their inner satisfaction. However, there is no clear explanation that could clarify the notion of absolute happiness. In this paper, happiness will be considered not as an ultimate goal in life but as an individuals way of life, which is manifested in their activities.
Ethics of Aristotle
Eternal questions about how to live a happy life have been appealing to people for many years. In ancient ethics, the first philosopher to investigate the concept of happiness was Aristotle. In Nicomachean Ethics, he argues that happiness consists in the activity of the soul in accordance with virtue, and if there are several virtues, in accordance with the best and most complete virtue (Bielskis et al., 2020, p. 58). Consequently, the source of absolute happiness underlies the active exercise of ones virtue. The motive of virtue implies that every action has a good purpose. Every craft and every method of inquiry, as well as every action and deliberate choice, seem to seek some good. The cultivation of virtues should be seen as a lifelong practice that may lead to an absolute blessing, ultimate good, and self-sufficiency.
The Link of Happiness and Virtue
The desire of a person to commit good deeds and put meaning in them bestows their life awareness and contemplation. The human good is determined by the human function insofar as determined by the activities that distinguish human beings from other living things (Aristotle & Irwin, 2019). It follows that happiness is not the ultimate goal but the path to it. Significant is not what aim the individual pursues but what methods they use to achieve it. As the philosopher claims, the function or exercise of that which is better is higher and more conducive to happiness (Aristotle, 1906, p. 337). The crucial key to happiness is a conscious attitude to ones actions and activities that make up the individuals life.
Happiness may lie in activities that develop a persons prudence, in virtuous actions, and deep contemplation. Moran (2018, p. 92) argues that the greatest happiness is achieved by the man who performs the activity that displays the greatest excellence characteristic of a human being. Happiness, according to Aristotle, is the satisfaction that a person achieves with the maximum manifestation of their essence, which is initially based on goodness. Virtue, that is, striving for the highest good, is the guarantee of happiness. At the same time, virtue is expressed in finding a balance between things to avoid excess or scarcity. It is in the balance, according to Aristotle, that the completeness of the human personality lies, and only through balance can a person find true self-satisfaction. Aristotle finds a connection between the greatest good and the natural balance of things. The philosopher suggests that every conscientious person should make every effort to live in the exercise of the highest of our facilities (Aristotle, 1906, p. 340). The pursuit of happiness is the search for real natural truth, and this is the fundamental calling of the human being.
Therefore, happiness may be a sublimation of all human goods and virtues. Happiness, then, is something complete and self-sufficient since it is the end of what is doable in action (Aristotle, 1906). However, some benefits and blessings might be completely different depending on the circumstances and conditions in which the individual is living. In other words, human benefits can be determined by the needs and requirements of a person. For instance, health may be taken for granted by a healthy person, yet a person who is exhausted by illness dreams of healing. Consequently, human virtue may be an individual phenomenon determined by ones needs and conditions.
Conclusion
To summarize the above arguments, happiness is a complex phenomenon that philosophers have studied since ancient times. Aristotle believed that happiness involves a life lived in accordance with reason and virtue. Aristotle claimed that every action might have a good intention, which constitutes the general well-being and blessing. Therefore, human beings should be eager to develop the noblest parts of their soul, which might subsequently lead them to absolute and unconditional happiness. Happiness may lie in activities that develop a persons prudence and deep reflection. At any time and under any circumstance in our life, people should practice virtue and thus reflect on life.
Aristotle. (1906). The Nicomachean Ethics. (Peters, F. H., Trans.). Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.
Bielskis, A., Leontsini, E., Knight, K., & Sgarbi, M. (2020). Virtue ethics and contemporary Aristotelianism: Modernity, conflict and politics (Bloomsbury studies in the Aristotelian tradition). Bloomsbury Academic.