2 Coming to Terms with Happiness
Happiness From Aristotle to the Self-Anchoring Cantril Scale
The concept of happiness is often seen as something personal, with many people believing that everyone has their own unique idea of what happiness means. This belief can lead to the assumption that happiness is completely subjective and varies from person to person. However, when we look closely at the history of happiness, we find that there is actually a good amount of agreement on its definition and meaning. There have been two main traditions in Western thought regarding happiness: the Aristotelian view and the Lockean view.
The Aristotelian view of happiness, which was prevalent until the 18th century, sees happiness as the ultimate goal of human life. Aristotle discusses this idea in his famous work, the Nicomachean Ethics. He begins by stating that every action we take is aimed at achieving some form of good. For example, when someone practices medicine, the good they seek is health; when someone plays sports, the good they seek is victory. In modern terms, we might say that everything we do can be described as being “good for” something. Aristotle emphasizes that happiness is unique because it is the only good we pursue for its own sake, rather than as a means to achieve another goal.
Aristotle defines happiness not simply as a feeling but as a state of being that results from leading a rational and virtuous life. He believes that human beings are distinctively rational creatures, and that our ability to think logically is what sets us apart from other animals. Because of this, happiness cannot be understood without considering the role of rationality in our actions. Aristotle argues that to live a good life, we must engage in activities that fulfill our rational nature, and he describes the ideal human life as an activity of the soul in accordance with reason. According to him, happiness is found in activities that align with our true nature.
To help clarify his idea of happiness, Aristotle introduces two kinds of wisdom: theoretical wisdom and practical wisdom. Theoretical wisdom is related to scientific knowledge and understanding, while practical wisdom involves making good decisions about how to act in real-life situations. For Aristotle, achieving happiness is more closely connected to practical wisdom because it equips us to evaluate different circumstances and make choices that are beneficial to ourselves and society. He points out that practical wisdom is necessary because every individual and every situation is unique, requiring a thoughtful approach to decision-making.
Further illustrating his point, Aristotle emphasizes that the more developed one’s practical wisdom is, the better the outcomes of their actions will be, not only for themselves but also for others. He also makes it clear that people may know what is right but may not always act on that knowledge. For instance, a person may know it is going to rain and wish to stay dry but might forget their umbrella. Aristotle points out that consistently acting on one's well-considered intentions fosters social functioning, as societies depend on individuals aligning their actions with their judgments.
Aristotle also argues that practical wisdom is a virtue in itself, helping individuals connect thought and action more effectively. He explains that virtue leads to happiness because both are intricately tied to rational thought. When people have high standards and perform their actions excellently, they live in accordance with virtue, thus experiencing happiness. Importantly, happiness is not just an abstract concept for Aristotle; he acknowledges that pleasure is part of happiness. While he insists that happiness and pleasure are not the same, he recognizes that a happy person can enjoy pleasurable experiences.
Despite acknowledging the presence of pleasure, Aristotle emphasizes that happiness is not confined to those who are wealthy or extraordinarily talented. He believes that even if people do not live their ideal version of happiness, they can still find happiness in their lives, provided they engage in virtuous activities. He suggests that misfortunes can happen to anyone, but a genuinely happy person will continue to act in ways that promote their happiness and well-being, much like a skilled craftsman who produces the best work possible with the resources they have.
The transition to the Lockean view in the 18th century marks a significant change in the way happiness is perceived. Locke emphasizes individual rights, arguing that each person has the authority to determine their own happiness. He states that happiness is about experiencing sensible pleasure and that there should be no hierarchy of pleasures; everyone should pursue their vision of happiness without anyone else judging that pursuit. For Locke, happiness is a personal experience deeply connected to how individuals perceive and pursue their own pleasures.
This shift in thought leads to later utilitarian philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, who further redefine happiness as related to pleasure. Bentham introduces the idea of maximizing pleasure while minimizing pain, suggesting that our actions should aim for the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. However, he also adds that individuals must not only focus on their own happiness; they should consider how their actions affect the happiness of others in their communities.
Mill, in contrast, emphasizes the quality of pleasures, arguing that not all pleasures are equal. He believes higher pleasures, which involve intellectual and moral qualities, are more valuable than lower pleasures that may simply provide temporary satisfaction. Mill famously states that it is better to be a dissatisfied human being than a satisfied pig, stressing the importance of intellectual and moral engagement in achieving true happiness.
As we reach the modern era, the idea of happiness continues to evolve. By the late 19th century, there is a noticeable shift from discussing happiness in philosophical terms to viewing it through the lens of psychology and sociology. Many scholars and scientists begin to analyze how people define and report their happiness rather than insisting on strict definitions based on philosophy.
This modern focus on “avowed happiness” refers to how individuals self-report their levels of happiness. Social scientists conduct surveys to gather data on happiness, revealing that satisfaction is often a key component. While some studies indicate that fleeting pleasures may not significantly influence how happy individuals feel overall, feelings of long-term satisfaction and fulfillment play a more crucial role in determining happiness.
In conclusion, while there have been various philosophical interpretations of happiness over the centuries, modern perspectives tend to emphasize individual experiences and self-reported feelings over prescriptive definitions rooted in philosophical ideals. The journey from Aristotle's view, through the Lockean revision, to contemporary understanding reflects how society’s approach to happiness has changed over time, ultimately focusing more on personal perceptions and emotional fulfillment in the pursuit of happiness.
A Working Definition of Happiness
A specific definition of happiness is not always needed because people generally agree on what constitutes a happy life. The working definition used here is lasting and justified satisfaction with one’s life overall. This means happiness goes beyond temporary feelings; it involves a long-term sense of achievement and fulfillment. The term "justified" is important because it implies that not all satisfactions are equal, suggesting a need for moral standards. Happiness requires a rational foundation; for instance, the satisfaction felt by a drug addict is not true happiness because it lacks reason. Thus, everyone needs self-awareness and judgment in their pursuit of happiness, regardless of their circumstances. Overall, true happiness combines emotional satisfaction with a justifiable understanding of one’s life.
The Experience Machine Test
The experience machine is a thought experiment about a device that lets people feel any experience they want, making it feel just like real life. Even though it seems appealing, most people would choose not to live this way. The refusal comes from a belief that there is more to being human than just feeling good sensations; it suggests that humans have something deeper, like a soul. The idea is also challenged when considering using the machine for a loved one, like a child with a disability, leading to a strong negative reaction.
Happiness From Aristotle to the Self-Anchoring Cantril Scale
The concept of happiness is often seen as something personal, with many people believing that everyone has their own unique idea of what happiness means. This belief can lead to the assumption that happiness is completely subjective and varies from person to person. However, when we look closely at the history of happiness, we find that there is actually a good amount of agreement on its definition and meaning. There have been two main traditions in Western thought regarding happiness: the Aristotelian view and the Lockean view.
The Aristotelian view of happiness, which was prevalent until the 18th century, sees happiness as the ultimate goal of human life. Aristotle discusses this idea in his famous work, the Nicomachean Ethics. He begins by stating that every action we take is aimed at achieving some form of good. For example, when someone practices medicine, the good they seek is health; when someone plays sports, the good they seek is victory. In modern terms, we might say that everything we do can be described as being “good for” something. Aristotle emphasizes that happiness is unique because it is the only good we pursue for its own sake, rather than as a means to achieve another goal.
Aristotle defines happiness not simply as a feeling but as a state of being that results from leading a rational and virtuous life. He believes that human beings are distinctively rational creatures, and that our ability to think logically is what sets us apart from other animals. Because of this, happiness cannot be understood without considering the role of rationality in our actions. Aristotle argues that to live a good life, we must engage in activities that fulfill our rational nature, and he describes the ideal human life as an activity of the soul in accordance with reason. According to him, happiness is found in activities that align with our true nature.
To help clarify his idea of happiness, Aristotle introduces two kinds of wisdom: theoretical wisdom and practical wisdom. Theoretical wisdom is related to scientific knowledge and understanding, while practical wisdom involves making good decisions about how to act in real-life situations. For Aristotle, achieving happiness is more closely connected to practical wisdom because it equips us to evaluate different circumstances and make choices that are beneficial to ourselves and society. He points out that practical wisdom is necessary because every individual and every situation is unique, requiring a thoughtful approach to decision-making.
Further illustrating his point, Aristotle emphasizes that the more developed one’s practical wisdom is, the better the outcomes of their actions will be, not only for themselves but also for others. He also makes it clear that people may know what is right but may not always act on that knowledge. For instance, a person may know it is going to rain and wish to stay dry but might forget their umbrella. Aristotle points out that consistently acting on one's well-considered intentions fosters social functioning, as societies depend on individuals aligning their actions with their judgments.
Aristotle also argues that practical wisdom is a virtue in itself, helping individuals connect thought and action more effectively. He explains that virtue leads to happiness because both are intricately tied to rational thought. When people have high standards and perform their actions excellently, they live in accordance with virtue, thus experiencing happiness. Importantly, happiness is not just an abstract concept for Aristotle; he acknowledges that pleasure is part of happiness. While he insists that happiness and pleasure are not the same, he recognizes that a happy person can enjoy pleasurable experiences.
Despite acknowledging the presence of pleasure, Aristotle emphasizes that happiness is not confined to those who are wealthy or extraordinarily talented. He believes that even if people do not live their ideal version of happiness, they can still find happiness in their lives, provided they engage in virtuous activities. He suggests that misfortunes can happen to anyone, but a genuinely happy person will continue to act in ways that promote their happiness and well-being, much like a skilled craftsman who produces the best work possible with the resources they have.
The transition to the Lockean view in the 18th century marks a significant change in the way happiness is perceived. Locke emphasizes individual rights, arguing that each person has the authority to determine their own happiness. He states that happiness is about experiencing sensible pleasure and that there should be no hierarchy of pleasures; everyone should pursue their vision of happiness without anyone else judging that pursuit. For Locke, happiness is a personal experience deeply connected to how individuals perceive and pursue their own pleasures.
This shift in thought leads to later utilitarian philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, who further redefine happiness as related to pleasure. Bentham introduces the idea of maximizing pleasure while minimizing pain, suggesting that our actions should aim for the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. However, he also adds that individuals must not only focus on their own happiness; they should consider how their actions affect the happiness of others in their communities.
Mill, in contrast, emphasizes the quality of pleasures, arguing that not all pleasures are equal. He believes higher pleasures, which involve intellectual and moral qualities, are more valuable than lower pleasures that may simply provide temporary satisfaction. Mill famously states that it is better to be a dissatisfied human being than a satisfied pig, stressing the importance of intellectual and moral engagement in achieving true happiness.
As we reach the modern era, the idea of happiness continues to evolve. By the late 19th century, there is a noticeable shift from discussing happiness in philosophical terms to viewing it through the lens of psychology and sociology. Many scholars and scientists begin to analyze how people define and report their happiness rather than insisting on strict definitions based on philosophy.
This modern focus on “avowed happiness” refers to how individuals self-report their levels of happiness. Social scientists conduct surveys to gather data on happiness, revealing that satisfaction is often a key component. While some studies indicate that fleeting pleasures may not significantly influence how happy individuals feel overall, feelings of long-term satisfaction and fulfillment play a more crucial role in determining happiness.
In conclusion, while there have been various philosophical interpretations of happiness over the centuries, modern perspectives tend to emphasize individual experiences and self-reported feelings over prescriptive definitions rooted in philosophical ideals. The journey from Aristotle's view, through the Lockean revision, to contemporary understanding reflects how society’s approach to happiness has changed over time, ultimately focusing more on personal perceptions and emotional fulfillment in the pursuit of happiness.
A Working Definition of Happiness
A specific definition of happiness is not always needed because people generally agree on what constitutes a happy life. The working definition used here is lasting and justified satisfaction with one’s life overall. This means happiness goes beyond temporary feelings; it involves a long-term sense of achievement and fulfillment. The term "justified" is important because it implies that not all satisfactions are equal, suggesting a need for moral standards. Happiness requires a rational foundation; for instance, the satisfaction felt by a drug addict is not true happiness because it lacks reason. Thus, everyone needs self-awareness and judgment in their pursuit of happiness, regardless of their circumstances. Overall, true happiness combines emotional satisfaction with a justifiable understanding of one’s life.
The Experience Machine Test
The experience machine is a thought experiment about a device that lets people feel any experience they want, making it feel just like real life. Even though it seems appealing, most people would choose not to live this way. The refusal comes from a belief that there is more to being human than just feeling good sensations; it suggests that humans have something deeper, like a soul. The idea is also challenged when considering using the machine for a loved one, like a child with a disability, leading to a strong negative reaction.