In our earlier study of Kant, the text points out that Kant downplays happiness in relation to reason and human purpose. If our purpose were to be happy, then our distinction as human beings from animals would not be reason but one of the many other qualities and devices that are more efficient for procuring happiness. * If what separates us as humans from animals is rational activity, and our purpose in life is what separates us from animals, then rational activity is indeed our purpose. Since reason is not a great source of pleasure, this also makes pleasure, while not inherently immoral, relatively unimportant compared to reason. Kant believes that therefore our purpose as humans in life is distinct from happiness and pleasures, because other tools and activities are far more conducive to achieving those ends. …show more content…
** In, On God and Morality, from the text, we are given an opposing view from the same author-- …”Happiness is the condition of a rational being in the world…But the moral law commands as a law of freedom through motives wholly independent of nature and of its harmony with our faculty of desire…” seeming to say that ration necessarily brings on happiness. These two statements are mutually exclusive. Reason cannot be above and distinct from happiness and yet inseparable from it. Even the second sentence there seems self-contradictory. The moral law (which in Kant’s morality can only be found through reason) cannot be both independent of and dependent on happiness, or
make people happy - are then moral. But this is not so Kant says if
In her book Meaning in Life and Why it Matters, Susan Wolf does not focus on this perennial question people have been asking over the vast confusion of human history rather she gazes her view at the question of how people seek and maintain meaningful lives. Seeking of meaningful life poses the question of motives that has driven us to engage in. Wolf judges the answer from philosophical point of view. Utilitarianism, a paradigm of teleological theory, accepts pleasure as the ultimate meaning of life. J. S. Mill argues, ‘pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things that are desirable as ends, and that everything that is desirable at all is so either for the pleasure inherent in it or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain’ [1863:10] Man demands and pursues the supreme good which comprises both virtue and happiness. Mill’s uses of the term pleasure confined it only in this physical world. Kant, on the other hand, uses it even after death. Virtue and pleasure, duty and inclination, are, according to Kant, heterogeneous notions. Their unity cannot be achieved within the narrow span of our life in this world. We, therefore, conceive immortal life for us. Hence, we seek pleasure not only in this material world, but also in the super sensible world as it is
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.
Kant advocated, many human beings are sympathetically constructed that without any other motives they discover an inner satisfaction in dispersing joy around and take delight in the satisfaction of other people, as long as it is their own work. However, it may conform to duty and amiable it may appear, sympathy possess no true moral worth (Kant, 2012).
Kant focuses on the importance of dignity which is the quality that is rendered by an individual’s overt actions. Additionally, internal joy is constituted by how one treats another as a human, not an implement used for one’s self-preserved motive.
The definition of happiness has long been disputed, and in order to establish a general definition one must discover mankind’s function (1095a.20). The distinct function of human beings will differentiate man from all other beings, thus it cannot be related to the characteristics of animals or plants. Aristotle explains that all living beings grow, and that man and animals share instinct. Through elimination, Aristotle establishes the distinct function of man as logic. Only human beings contain three souls and have the ability to use reason. Aristotle states, “the function of man then is activity of soul [thinking well and doing well] in accordance with reason” (). Ultimately, logic allows human beings to use reason in decision-making and to be virtuous.
For most of us, achieving some state of Happiness is a core objective. Indeed, in a great many of the philosophical musings on the very purpose of our lives here on Earth will tend to focus on the importance of achieving happiness, of sharing happiness and of bringing happiness to others. It is therefore reasonable to propose the knee-jerk response that happiness is the end in and of itself. However, as Kant asserts, this is an incomplete understanding of our supposed purpose here. As the 18th Century German philosopher asserts, happiness lived without the principle of good will, can have the capacity to be a rather unsavory force. According to Kant, in fact, this concept of good will is a core determinant as to whether the characteristics by which we can be defined may be considered virtues or vices. Kant argues that this truth "holds with gifts of fortune; power, riches, honor, even health, and that complete well-being and contentment with one's condition which is called happiness make for pride and often hereby even arrogance, unless there is a good will to correct their influence on the mind and herewith also to rectify the whole principle of action and make it universally comfortable to its end." (Kant, p. 7) This principle underlies the initial rejection of the assumption that Happiness, however formulated, is the
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
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.
He recommended gaining a rational control over one’s desires, these desires being those that can be harmful to life such as: lust, greed, pride, and power. He argued that the key to human happiness is to turn away from the body and towards the soul. He said that harmonizing the different parts of the soul would produce a divine-like state of inner tranquility that the external world could not alter. A moral life is to be preferred to an immoral life. This view of happiness is linked to other concepts such as justice, virtue, and the ultimate meaning of human existence. Living a moral and just life would lead to a happier 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
Kant argues that mere conformity with the moral law is not sufficient for moral goodness. I will argue that Kant is right. In this essay I will explain why Kant distinguishes between conforming with the moral law and acting for the sake of the moral law, and what that distinction means to Kant, before arguing why Kant was right.
In conclusion, it is not necessary to behave morally to achieve happiness. With morality and happiness being as subjective as they are,
In part one of our book, “The Good Life,” we studied five different philosopher’s viewpoints on what is needed in order for a person to have a good, fulfilling life. They all included the concepts of pleasure and happiness to some extent in their theories, but they all approached the ideas in different ways. The two hedonists we studied, Epicurus and John Stuart Mill, place heavy emphasis on the importance of pleasure. They both believe that pleasure is a necessity in the ideal life. Jean Kazez agreed with their viewpoints in her theory and said that happiness was a necessity for a good life. Epicurus and Mill also argue that there is nothing else that we ultimately desire beyond pleasure and that it is an intrinsic good.
Many philosophers through history have dealt with happiness, pleasure, justice, and virtues. In this essay there will given facts on virtues between two philosophers who have different views on the topic. Aristotle and Kant have two totally different views on virtue, one being based on the soul and how you character depicts you virtue and the other which is based of the fact that anyone has a chance of being morally good, even bad people. There is a lot of disagreement between Aristotle and Kant, which has examples to back the disagreements. Aristotle takes virtue as an excellence, while Kant takes it more to being a person doing something morally good in the society and for them as a person. One similarity between these two philosophers though, is that these two descriptions of virtue lead back to happiness in the individual. At the end of this essay, the reader should be capable of understanding that Aristotle’s theory is more supported than Kant’s theory. Of course, explanations for both sides will be given thoroughly throughout this comparison.