Aristotle and Kant on Happiness, Morality, and Normative Force

Happiness is an essential goal for most people. From books and expensive classes that teach people how to achieve happiness to the fundamental right of “the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence, the importance of happiness is evident in society. This causes the rise to two fundamental questions: “How does one attain happiness?” and “,How does happiness create a meaningful life?” Both happiness and living a meaningful life are achieved simultaneously. The search for happiness and the factors that make it brings meaning to life. Happiness can stem from several factors such as wisdom and knowledge, savoring life and its experiences, and even suffering and pain. Analyzing these factors brings meaning to one’s life.

“Happiness is in the enjoyment of man’s chief good. Two conditions of the chief good: 1st, Nothing is better than it; 2nd, it cannot be lost against the will” (Augustine 264-267). As human

Attention Materials: Many times I have wondered what is true happiness. Is there such thing as true happiness? Can it even be attained if there is such a thing? Is it more of fulfilling desires, or satisfying psychological needs? Every person attempts to realize happiness in its fullest essence. It seems like today people are too busy trying to get rich. Nowadays it is believed that happiness lies in that new mansion, or a nice Ferrari. People are mistakingly assuming that wealth will bring to them a personal significance in which they will achieve happiness.

Perhaps it is safe to say that most everyone in the deranged world that we live in today aims for happiness. Some would even say we are simply slaves to our primal passions, shackled in our endless pursuit of fulfillments and shaping our existence around them. Gravitating towards the things in life that bring us pleasure, and recoiling away from those that could cause us pain. A lot of individuals think of happiness as an overall end goal, while others consider happiness the starting point of being great. Nevertheless, happiness is drawn from different things based off the individual.

People travel through life with what seems like a single goal: to be happy. This may seem like a selfish way to live, however this lone objective is the motivation behind nearly all actions. Even seemingly selfless deeds make people feel better about themselves. That warm feeling experienced while doing charitable acts can be described as happiness. But what is authentic happiness? There is an endless possibility of answers to this question, and man seems to be always searching for the solution. Although one may reach his or her goals, there is always still something one strives for in order to be happy. In the book Stumbling on Happiness, Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert takes the reader through

Mankind must by this time have acquired positive beliefs as to the effects of some actions on their happiness; and the beliefs which have thus come down are the rules of morality for the multitude, and for the philosopher until he has succeeded in finding better. That philosophers might easily do this, even now, on many subjects; that the received code of ethics is by no means of divine right; and that mankind have still much to learn as to the effects of actions on general happiness, I admit or rather earnestly maintain.

John Stuart Mill and Aristotle both address the idea of happiness as the goal of human life. They explain that all human action is at the foundation of their moral theories. Mill addresses the Greatest Happiness Principle, which is the greatest amount of pleasure to the least amount of pain. Similarly, Aristotle addresses happiness through the idea of eudaimonia and human flourishing. According to Aristotle, eudaimonia is happiness, it is the state of contemplation that individuals are in when they have reached actualized happiness. Also referred to as happiness or human flourishing, it is the ultimate goal of human beings. Happiness is “living well and acting well.” He explains that once general happiness becomes recognized as the moral standard, natural sentiment will nurture feelings that promote utilitarianism. According to Aristotle, happiness is a state of being. Both Mill and Aristotle agree that in order to attain true happiness, human beings must engage in activities that are distinct to humans and that make them happy. Aristotle’s idea of eudaimonia and human flourishing is a more compelling argument than Mill’s for happiness and the final end because Aristotle explains that the virtues bring human beings to happiness.

Immanuel Kant refers to happiness as contentment (Kant, ) whereas John Stuart Mill refers to it as the pursuit of pleasure and the absence of pain (Mill, p.7). Kant does not base his ethics on happiness. Instead, he argues that morality is based on our duty as a human (Kant, ). To do what is right for Kant is to do what is instinctually moral without giving thought to the overall happiness. On the other hand, Mill does in fact use happiness as the bases for his ethics. He proposes that actions are right if they promote overall happiness and wrong if they promote the opposite of happiness (Mill, ). In this paper, it will be argued that Mill 's views on happiness are more reasonable than those of Kant 's because happiness should be the base for ethics.

Happiness is a result that we deserved, furthermore, it becomes a motivation for us to keep trying and getting success in life.

Happiness is what all human beings/rational beings desire. It is always the end (goal) of our activities, it is an unconditional good.

Now happiness, more than anything else, seems complete without qualification. For we always choose it because of itself, never because of something else. Honor, pleasure, understanding, and every virtue

Happiness is the central purpose of human life and a goal in itself. All action is goal oriented and the goal of every action, is to reach happiness. According to Aristotle, happiness is “living well

The everlasting question of "What is Happiness?" has been inquired since the creation of men. Unfortunately, the only agreed answer that humanity came up with is that all the creatures seek happiness, but no one has the concrete directions for achieving it. Our libraries are overwhelmed with books about happiness, but no dictionary definition explains which path men must take to be happy. No mathematician gave us the axiom which we could use to solve the problem of living in bliss. No scientist brought up the formula of fusing certain ingredients to produce the "drink of happiness". Still almost all the people consider that their ultimate purport in

Immanuel Kant and Aristotle are two of the most prominent philosophers on ethics and morals. Each has their own idea about human life and what the highest good is. It has even been said that in his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals Kant disproves Aristotle’s view. In order to prove that Kant successfully disproves Aristotle’s theory, we must first understand both theories. After a successful understanding has been acquired only then can we prove that Kant’s completely disproves Aristotle’s theory.

The true meaning and idea of happiness could perhaps never be truly known. Throughout the ages, the idea of what happiness is has been