Morality and Happiness

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.

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;

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

Since we have discussed the states of friendship and virtue in relationship to happiness, we must now examine the activities of friendship and virtue that make a happy life easier to attain. Aristotle claimed that of the goods in life “some are necessary conditions of happiness, while others are naturally useful and cooperative as instruments (1099b28-29).” He goes on further to exclaim that “having friends seems to be the greatest external good (1169b10-11).” Therefore this external good would be useful in attaining happiness. Friendship can be used as an instrument in performing virtuous actions necessary for happiness because “the solitary person’s life is hard, since it is not easy for him to be continually active all by himself; but in relation to others and in their company it is easier (1170a6-8).” Friends can also help us achieve happiness but guiding us to do virtuous acts, “for it is proper to good people to avoid error themselves and not to permit it in their friends

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.

There are certain things that are in the control of the humans, at the same time there are several things, which are not under the human’s control. Thus, to persist a happy life, the humans are required to put an end their desire such that the satisfaction of

“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

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle define happiness as the ‘highest good’. Aristotle states that everyone agrees that this highest good is happiness, but often disagree about what happiness really is. Many would believe that happiness is gained from material possessions, wealth or high social status, but Aristotle states that this is not the highest good. Aristotle believed that to obtain happiness, we must have virtue. Virtue is defined as a state of being and acting in the correct manner with high moral standards, neither acting in

This means that a truly good life requires that we moralize, in order to determine our true human potentialities. Once we determine that this is moral and intellectual virtue, then we must actualize the good in every situation we are encountered with. Without a civilized society, humans merge into animalistic creatures or beyond the spectrum as God-like. Therefore, the eudemonia sets principles and ethics of happiness that are governed by virtue, activity, and logos. A well civilized and positive society must make human think according to reason by the activity of practicing virtues in order to reach certain desires and needs, which govern and construct our social relationships with others in the society we are developed on. Therefore, in order

There are many theories surrounding happiness, and the pursuit of happiness. Some believe that an external force must be present to bring about happiness, while others argue that happiness is individualized, and is completely up to a person's internal mindset of whether he or she is able to achieve and maintain happiness. Aristotle, a significant ancient Greek philosopher, believes that happiness requires an action. He affirms that there are many factors that play into someone's happiness; including materialistic things, which help support this state of being. His claim is that happiness is a holistic approach to life and must be achieved by living virtuously with moral character. Aristotle also indicates that happiness is not a moment in time, but rather a journey of exploration by way of living harmoniously, through a pursuit of achieving life’s goals and desires. He adds that a life of happiness is driven by virtue and emotions, which all play a role in achieving optimum happiness.

For this essay this paper will be discussing the subject of moral behaviour and if it is necessary for happiness. The view that this paper will reflect and focus on is that “moral” behaviour is not absolutely necessary to be happy. To fully comprehend the topic in question we must look at the definitions of morality and happiness. Moral behaviour is subjective in the sense that what may seem right to one person may not seem right to another. Happiness is also entirely subjective due to the fact that what can make one or some people happy might not be the case for others. Examples will be given to demonstrate the fact that moral behaviour is not necessary for happiness. To be blunt the matter of the fact is that there are many people out

If you asked a random person on the street “what is a good person?” or “what is the good life?” you would likely receive a different answer from everyone. These answers would be different because everyone has their own ideas and opinions of what the answers should be. For many, a good person is someone who lives a good life, is a Christian, or someone who helps other individuals. For some, a good person might be someone who puts others first and someone who is reliable. The same applies to the answers you would receive from “what is the good life?” Just like everyone had different opinions on what a good person is, they will also have different opinions on what the good life is. You might get answers ranging from spending time with one’s family to having a lot of money. These answers vary depending on the individuals values and world view. For some individuals this desire for money can cause them to act on it, driving them to steal in order to gain happiness. Bronk supports this idea by stating, “Our answers guide our actions, influence our decisions, and inspire our dreams” (2008, p.713). This paper will discuss how philosophers believe everyone should live and what kind of people we should be, what a good person is, what the good life is, and what the relationship between goodness and human reality is.

There are certain truths of the world that cannot be ignored or overlooked. Many philosophers have spent countless years discussing, debating and evaluating such truths. One such influential philosopher is Socrates. Born in Athens in 469 B.C.E, he spent most of his time at the marketplace and other public places engaging in dialogues about truths of life. Among many other things, he discussed virtue and happiness and how closely they are related. According to Socrates, virtue is absolutely necessary for perfect happiness because virtue brings a type of happiness that other things could never bring. In this paper, I will explain the aforementioned idea of Socrates on virtue and happiness and through evidence from Plato's Apology which is

The quality of a good life comes down to the balance of an inward habit and the outer world. Fundamental issue with humanity wants people’s approval. During a person’s lifespan, they confront and meet countless people and sooner or later, they must be approved in order to feel satisfied. They behave and act trying to fulfil the other person’s opinion. Nowadays person’s behavior, actions is constrained by society, code of conduct, and laws. (Edberg, 2013) Even high level of freedom cannot ensure the personal expression. Because of a lifestyle only convincing others, they live a severed life of their own. They believe they can postpone a good life until the future. Having a good life is a personal choice. If the person decides to increase the quality of his or her life, the person needs to overcome inward fear. Fear of the unknown retard the development