The Choice of Happiness

[Amanda]

Read Aristotle. He discusses how happiness is an ethical choice. Happiness arises out of concern for others. It's not some temporary state of self-satisfaction nor is it dependent on mood.
Happiness and Greek ethical thought - Google Book Search

Nah, I'll just keep being happy.

No problem. I didn't expect you to have much interest in cultivating your critical thinking. My mistake in responding to your post as if you were someone iactually nterested in discussing the topic and considering it more deeply. No wonder you often report being bored.

See ya later, kid.

Actually... I think you bring up my boredom more than I do, but that's ok. I don't see other peoples happiness as my problem or responsibility so you can hate on me all you like and it doesn't make any diff to me.

BTW, are you making a conscience, ethical choice to send negative energy my way when you post condescending remarks to me or does it just sorta happen?

 

[Sky Dancer]

Nah, I'll just keep being happy.

No problem. I didn't expect you to have much interest in cultivating your critical thinking. My mistake in responding to your post as if you were someone iactually nterested in discussing the topic and considering it more deeply. No wonder you often report being bored.

See ya later, kid.

Actually... I think you bring up my boredom more than I do, but that's ok. I don't see other peoples happiness as my problem or responsibility so you can hate on me all you like and it doesn't make any diff to me.

BTW, are you making a conscience, ethical choice to send negative energy my way when you post condescending remarks to me or does it just sorta happen?

I'm making a conscious choice to stay on the topic, and to challenge you to think a bit more. I stated earlier that I think happiness is being present and being with the truth of how things are. If you want to talk about the truth of how things are in how you and I relate to each other--fine. As long as it's relevant to the topic of happiness. You continue to give the message that you've made up your mind about what happiness is--so what's the point in discussing it then? Go back to sleep.

I find trying to discuss a topic-such as the ethics of happiness as a practice-- in some depth with you, a frustrating experience. I think it's safe to say it's the same for you. I frustrate you because I continually challenge you.

I don't enjoy being insulting. I don't enjoy being insulted. When I indulge that negative side of myself--I take breaks to regain my composure.

 

[Amanda]

No problem. I didn't expect you to have much interest in cultivating your critical thinking. My mistake in responding to your post as if you were someone iactually nterested in discussing the topic and considering it more deeply. No wonder you often report being bored.

See ya later, kid.

Actually... I think you bring up my boredom more than I do, but that's ok. I don't see other peoples happiness as my problem or responsibility so you can hate on me all you like and it doesn't make any diff to me.

BTW, are you making a conscience, ethical choice to send negative energy my way when you post condescending remarks to me or does it just sorta happen?

I'm making a conscious choice to stay on the topic, and to challenge you to think a bit more. I stated earlier that I think happiness is being present and being with the truth of how things are. If you want to talk about the truth of how things are in how you and I relate to each other--fine. As long as it's relevant to the topic of happiness. You continue to give the message that you've made up your mind about what happiness is--so what's the point in discussing it then? Go back to sleep.

I find trying to discuss a topic-such as the ethics of happiness as a practice-- in some depth with you, a frustrating experience. I think it's safe to say it's the same for you. I frustrate you because I continually challenge you.

I don't enjoy being insulting. I don't enjoy being insulted. When I indulge that negative side of myself--I take breaks to regain my composure.

Nope, I don't find it frustrating at all. And I don't think you challenge me... I think you have your own opinions and you're frustrated that others don't share them. I also don't think you get to dictate which direction the thread goes in, so I'm not worried if you think I'm going off-topic by not keeping the discussion to the narrow way you think it should be discussed.

And, FWIW, if you have to take breaks to regain your composure I think you're probably doing more harm to yourself than any help you think you're giving to someone else. In those little Buddhist stories where the master whacks the student with a stick to teach them something do you think the master has to go take a break afterward? I would venture no. Why? The master isn't reacting emotionally. The master is owning none of the drama, just giving a lesson. You're not giving a lesson, you're lashing out. There is a little bit of a lesson I guess, but it's yours to learn, not whoever you think you're teaching.

From what I have seen I think it's good that you're trying to find happiness, but I don't think you're right to tell other people that they are pursuing it wrong. I don't think "being present" is the key to anything except being present. All the way you may feel many things, and you may end up a better person for living in the present but I don't think that's the same thing as happiness... at least not how most people think of it.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Actually... I think you bring up my boredom more than I do, but that's ok. I don't see other peoples happiness as my problem or responsibility so you can hate on me all you like and it doesn't make any diff to me.

BTW, are you making a conscience, ethical choice to send negative energy my way when you post condescending remarks to me or does it just sorta happen?

I'm making a conscious choice to stay on the topic, and to challenge you to think a bit more. I stated earlier that I think happiness is being present and being with the truth of how things are. If you want to talk about the truth of how things are in how you and I relate to each other--fine. As long as it's relevant to the topic of happiness. You continue to give the message that you've made up your mind about what happiness is--so what's the point in discussing it then? Go back to sleep.

I find trying to discuss a topic-such as the ethics of happiness as a practice-- in some depth with you, a frustrating experience. I think it's safe to say it's the same for you. I frustrate you because I continually challenge you.

I don't enjoy being insulting. I don't enjoy being insulted. When I indulge that negative side of myself--I take breaks to regain my composure.

Nope, I don't find it frustrating at all. And I don't think you challenge me... I think you have your own opinions and you're frustrated that others don't share them. I also don't think you get to dictate which direction the thread goes in, so I'm not worried if you think I'm going off-topic by not keeping the discussion to the narrow way you think it should be discussed.

And, FWIW, if you have to take breaks to regain your composure I think you're probably doing more harm to yourself than any help you think you're giving to someone else. In those little Buddhist stories where the master whacks the student with a stick to teach them something do you think the master has to go take a break afterward? I would venture no. Why? The master isn't reacting emotionally. The master is owning none of the drama, just giving a lesson. You're not giving a lesson, you're lashing out. There is a little bit of a lesson I guess, but it's yours to learn, not whoever you think you're teaching.

From what I have seen I think it's good that you're trying to find happiness, but I don't think you're right to tell other people that they are pursuing it wrong. I don't think "being present" is the key to anything except being present. All the way you may feel many things, and you may end up a better person for living in the present but I don't think that's the same thing as happiness... at least not how most people think of it.

In the story you refer to about the master whacking the student you completely misunderstand why the master whacks the student. The master whacks the student to help him come back into the present moment and realize awareness itself. Why is the present moment so important? Because it is the key to happiness. Finding awareness and resting in it are the key to happiness. Serving others is the key to happiness.

In your case, happiness is whatever you say it is. Pursue happiness however you wish. Define happiness however you wish. Hold onto to whatever perceptions you have. Remember the past, plan the future, and miss the truth of being, now. Every moment is a new opportunity to let go of the past and be fresh and present.

See you later, kid.

 

[Amanda]

I'm making a conscious choice to stay on the topic, and to challenge you to think a bit more. I stated earlier that I think happiness is being present and being with the truth of how things are. If you want to talk about the truth of how things are in how you and I relate to each other--fine. As long as it's relevant to the topic of happiness. You continue to give the message that you've made up your mind about what happiness is--so what's the point in discussing it then? Go back to sleep.

I find trying to discuss a topic-such as the ethics of happiness as a practice-- in some depth with you, a frustrating experience. I think it's safe to say it's the same for you. I frustrate you because I continually challenge you.

I don't enjoy being insulting. I don't enjoy being insulted. When I indulge that negative side of myself--I take breaks to regain my composure.

Nope, I don't find it frustrating at all. And I don't think you challenge me... I think you have your own opinions and you're frustrated that others don't share them. I also don't think you get to dictate which direction the thread goes in, so I'm not worried if you think I'm going off-topic by not keeping the discussion to the narrow way you think it should be discussed.

And, FWIW, if you have to take breaks to regain your composure I think you're probably doing more harm to yourself than any help you think you're giving to someone else. In those little Buddhist stories where the master whacks the student with a stick to teach them something do you think the master has to go take a break afterward? I would venture no. Why? The master isn't reacting emotionally. The master is owning none of the drama, just giving a lesson. You're not giving a lesson, you're lashing out. There is a little bit of a lesson I guess, but it's yours to learn, not whoever you think you're teaching.

From what I have seen I think it's good that you're trying to find happiness, but I don't think you're right to tell other people that they are pursuing it wrong. I don't think "being present" is the key to anything except being present. All the way you may feel many things, and you may end up a better person for living in the present but I don't think that's the same thing as happiness... at least not how most people think of it.

In the story you refer to about the master whacking the student you completely misunderstand why the master whacks the student. The master whacks the student to help him come back into the present moment and realize awareness itself. Why is the present moment so important? Because it is the key to happiness. Finding awareness and resting in it are the key to happiness. Serving others is the key to happiness.

In your case, happiness is whatever you say it is. Pursue happiness however you wish. Define happiness however you wish. Hold onto to whatever perceptions you have. Remember the past, plan the future, and miss the truth of being, now. Every moment is a new opportunity to let go of the past and be fresh and present.

See you later, kid.

You so consistently miss the point others are making I have to wonder if you don't respond to it on purpose or if you're just so enthralled with your own misunderstanding that you miss it. Oh well... good luck with your anger management issues and internet addiction.

 

[Agnapostate]

An integral component in the pursuit of happiness is the formulation of an ethical theory that permits people to refine methods of this pursuit in a philosophical framework. The answer to that, in my opinion, is the ethical doctrine of utilitarianism, which is based on maximizing the greatest amount of total happiness, ideally for the greatest amount of people, unless those two are in conflict. (We have to seek some form of broadly Pareto optimal level of happiness that's also equitable.) First broadly conceptualized by the pleasure seeking Epicureans and then refined into an ethical theory by Jeremy Bentham and then structured further by John Stuart Mill, utilitarianism is notable amongst ethical theories in that it specifically structures itself to the pursuit of happiness, which I think we all have meta-ethical inclinations towards.

I was just chatting by PM with another poster that was saying they were angry or bitter a lot. That seems so sad to me, I wish I knew how to share my secret... whatever it is. Sometimes people will bust on me saying "Ignorance is bliss" and I always say I'd rather be happy than smart, I really would. They usually shake their heads and feel like they are superior for being so much smarter than me. But are they really better off? I don't think so, I wouldn't trade places with them.

This isn't off-topic, actually. It highlights an interesting ethical debate. One of John Stuart Mill's critical contributions to utilitarian ethical theory was the "qualitative separation of pleasures," which distinguished "lower" pleasures, such as physical ones, from "higher" pleasures, such as intellectual ones, summed up in this famous quotation: "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question." This fundamentally conflicts with Bentham's analysis that "Pushpin is as good as an Opera."

And in fact, it's possible to incorporate another strand of utilitarianism, R.M. Hare's "two-level utilitarianism," so that the two are not necessarily in conflict. Two-level utilitarianism is traditionally regarded as a synthesis of act and rule utilitarianism, which fit the broad form of contradiction between the "individual" and the "collective." Similarly, it's perhaps better for the individual to be "the pig satisfied," whilst it's better for the collective that there be a significant degree of "human beings dissatisfied" so as to even create the infrastructure that keeps the pig satisfied.

I'm not calling you a pig or a fool, of course. I think you're far more intelligent than you give yourself credit for.

I want to add something else. By formal training, I'm a philosopher, or a philosophy student, at the very least, specializing in ethics. But we should all be ethicists. We shouldn't need a specific class or category of the population to tell us which actions are and aren't ethical. We should all be capable of arriving at ethical conclusions by ourselves through the reasoning that is attacked by so many as "esoteric." When I've debated others on applied ethical topics such as abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, and related topics, I've won as a virtue of merely having the ability to identify and rebut numerous logical fallacies and poor arguments made by opponents, thanks to both my formal and informal training in ethics and argument logic.

What's interesting is that that actually also has relation to utilitarian ethical theory. I derive temporary happiness from defeating opponents, but experience sadness in realizing that so many are so ignorant of argument logic and ethics that I'm capable of beating them so easily. So perhaps my happiness would actually be maximized if I didn't have greater abilities than opponents.

 

[del]

note to self: wear hip waders in future.

 

[Agnapostate]

That's not likely to promote happiness amongst those obligated to interact with you...not that they had much opportunity for it in the first place.

 

[del]

note to self- bring respirator, make sure batteries are charged.

 

[Agnapostate]

I see the Boston narcotics trade remains as powerful as ever.

 

[editec]

Well if you presume that adhering to reality is one of the paths to happiness, I'm not sure I agree.

Some of the most satisfied people I know have extremely tenuious grasps of reality.



Let's take that old saw about the state of that glass of water, shall we?

Some people might call that glass half full.

Others might call it half empty.

Others, let's call them realists, might say the glass had 6 ounces of water in it.

What ethical decision did any of them make?

Did one DECIDE to be an optimist and the others decided to be pessimeistic or realistic?

Perhaps I simply don't know what you're talking about.
Fell free to illuminate me about these "ethical" decisions one makes that will bring us happiness.

That's a possibility. Sorry about that. We make an ethical decision, when we realize that our happiness is interdependent with the happiness of others.

Then we choose to serve others, because we realize we aren't any different from anyone else. We all want to be happy, and we don't always know what leads to happiness.

We sometimes think being selfish leads to happiness. It doesn't.

Oh, okay, I understand your point now.

Yes, I think that loving people and being loved back is one of the conditions which is most likely to give you real happiness.

No argument from me on that point.

I'm not sure that has anything to do with "ethics" though.

Ethically one might be true to someone who is incapable of bringing you joy.

Women seem to be especially prone to doing that, I've noticed.

That's actually one of the reasons I think women are basically better humans than men are, to be honest.

I suspect also, that may be why they live longer than men, too.

Sometimes loving somebody who really isn't worthy of that affection, while emotionally painful, is still psychologically more healthy for the person who loves than not loving those others.

But is that ALWAYS an ethical decision?

I'm not sure...certainly not according to my understanding of the word.

 

[Agnapostate]

You can certainly note the role of happiness maximization in reference to various forms of consequentialism, such as utilitarianism, ethical egoism, etc.

 

[Sky Dancer]

You can certainly note the role of happiness maximization in reference to various forms of consequentialism, such as utilitarianism, ethical egoism, etc.

What do you thiink of Aristotle's point of view?

 

[Agnapostate]

What do you thiink of Aristotle's point of view?

I think it's an empty rhetorical point that had little relation to his actual advocacy of virtue ethics.

 

[Sky Dancer]

What do you thiink of Aristotle's point of view?

I think it's an empty rhetorical point that had little relation to his actual advocacy of virtue ethics.

I'm looking at this from a psychological perspective as well as an ethical one.

"What do we mean when we say that one of the main objectives of good government is to see that no man is interfered with -- more than that, that every man must be helped by the state in his effort to lead a good life, a worthwhile life, a humanly satisfying life?

That fact that every man has a right to pursue happiness suggests that happiness is attainable -- in some degree -- by all men. But is this happiness the same for all men? Is each of us pursuing the same goal when we try to live in such a way that our lives will be happy ones? To answer these questions it is necessary to understand the meaning of happiness -- what constitutes a happy life.

And to do that, we must, first of all, clear our minds of certain misconceptions about the meaning of the word happy -- Every day of our lives, we use the word "happy" in a sense which means "feeling good," "having fun," having a good time, or somehow experiencing a lively pleasure of joy. We say to our friends when they seem despondent or out of sorts, "I hope you will feel happier tomorrow."

We say "Happy New Year" or "Happy Birthday" or "Happy Anniversary." Now all of these expressions refer to the pleasant feelings -- the joys or satisfactions which we may have at one moment and not at another. In this meaning of the word, it is quite possible for us to feel happy at one moment and not at the next. This is not Aristotle's meaning of the word. Nor, when you think about it for a moment, can it be the meaning of the word in the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson and other signers of the Declaration had read Aristotle and Plato. This was part of their education.

Both Aristotle and the Declaration use the word happiness in a sense which refers to the quality of a whole human life -- what makes it good as a whole, in spite of the fact that we are not having fun or a good time every minute of it."
ADLER ARCHIVE: Aristotle's Ethics - The Theory of Happiness I

 

[Sky Dancer]

Well if you presume that adhering to reality is one of the paths to happiness, I'm not sure I agree.

Some of the most satisfied people I know have extremely tenuious grasps of reality.



Let's take that old saw about the state of that glass of water, shall we?

Some people might call that glass half full.

Others might call it half empty.

Others, let's call them realists, might say the glass had 6 ounces of water in it.

What ethical decision did any of them make?

Did one DECIDE to be an optimist and the others decided to be pessimeistic or realistic?

Perhaps I simply don't know what you're talking about.
Fell free to illuminate me about these "ethical" decisions one makes that will bring us happiness.

That's a possibility. Sorry about that. We make an ethical decision, when we realize that our happiness is interdependent with the happiness of others.

Then we choose to serve others, because we realize we aren't any different from anyone else. We all want to be happy, and we don't always know what leads to happiness.

We sometimes think being selfish leads to happiness. It doesn't.

Oh, okay, I understand your point now.

Yes, I think that loving people and being loved back is one of the conditions which is most likely to give you real happiness.

No argument from me on that point.

I'm not sure that has anything to do with "ethics" though.

Ethically one might be true to someone who is incapable of bringing you joy.

Women seem to be especially prone to doing that, I've noticed.

That's actually one of the reasons I think women are basically better humans than men are, to be honest.

I suspect also, that may be why they live longer than men, too.

Sometimes loving somebody who really isn't worthy of that affection, while emotionally painful, is still psychologically more healthy for the person who loves than not loving those others.

But is that ALWAYS an ethical decision?

I'm not sure...certainly not according to my understanding of the word.

We all want happiness and consider happiness a good thing that should be increased in the world. Therefore, any action that increases — that is, the greatest level of happiness for the greatest number of people — is good. So choosing to act in ways that increase the happiness of of self and others is an ethical practice--a choice.

 

[alan1]

Happiness is a choice. It is not just some moment of pleasure. It's an ethical strategy.

I completely agree with your first sentence, but personally, I don't believe it to be an ethical strategy.

I had a good friend that used say "happiness is a choice". And he said it quite often. A few years ago he was diagnosed with ALS. The disease hit him fast and hard. In six months he was in a wheelchair, and in a year he was dead. He was 34 years old. He never lost his positive outlook nor his happiness.

At his funeral, his wife got up and spoke, and this is (part) of what she had to say (I paraphrase here),
"My husband used to always say that happiness is a choice. Today is without a doubt a sad day in my life, but today I choose to be happy. I'm happy for the 10 wonderful years that I was allowed to have with him. I'm happy for the gift of my 2 beautiful daughters that he gave me. I'm happy for all the people here that were touched in some manner by my husband's life. I want everybody here to remember his words, Happiness is a choice."

You know something, I've been happy man ever since that day.

 

[editec]

That's a possibility. Sorry about that. We make an ethical decision, when we realize that our happiness is interdependent with the happiness of others.

Then we choose to serve others, because we realize we aren't any different from anyone else. We all want to be happy, and we don't always know what leads to happiness.

We sometimes think being selfish leads to happiness. It doesn't.

Oh, okay, I understand your point now.

Yes, I think that loving people and being loved back is one of the conditions which is most likely to give you real happiness.

No argument from me on that point.

I'm not sure that has anything to do with "ethics" though.

Ethically one might be true to someone who is incapable of bringing you joy.

Women seem to be especially prone to doing that, I've noticed.

That's actually one of the reasons I think women are basically better humans than men are, to be honest.

I suspect also, that may be why they live longer than men, too.

Sometimes loving somebody who really isn't worthy of that affection, while emotionally painful, is still psychologically more healthy for the person who loves than not loving those others.

But is that ALWAYS an ethical decision?

I'm not sure...certainly not according to my understanding of the word.

We all want happiness and consider happiness a good thing that should be increased in the world. Therefore, any action that increases — that is, the greatest level of happiness for the greatest number of people — is good. So choosing to act in ways that increase the happiness of of self and others is an ethical practice--a choice.

Yeah, I see where you're going with this.

I try to apply a maximumization of happiness approach to my life.

For example, those last pieces of chocolate cake?

I I knew couldn't POSSIBLY have enjoyed them as much as much former wife did, so she pretty much always got them.

When you find you can take greater joy out of giving joy, you're likely to be (in the Jeffersonians sense) on the road to personal happiness.

Upon that, I think you and I are of the same mind.

 

[Agnapostate]

Comparative advantage has earned its space.

 

[manifold]

hmmmm?

Sky just might be on to something here. I know that on one or two occasions I chose to call her a douchebag on account of her behaving like a douchebag, and you know what...it made me happy.