For years, many of us have clung on to every word that just about every philosopher has ever said. Whether it is coming from Charles Darwin, Jean-Paul Sartre, Aristotle, John Locke or Lao-Tzu, those that have come before us, have broken down human nature, and were so kind enough to write it down for us. I would argue that the ideas that stem from philosophers are ultimately guidelines for an individual to follow. I would also argue that it is up to that individual to follow them. Compared to the times of such philosophers, some as early as Before Christ, modern society does not fully uphold the old ways of philosophical thinking, yet we find their ideas interesting.
In Aristotle’s The Proper Function of Man and Its Relation to the Good Life, Aristotle suggests that the highest good is happiness. He says that things “such as wealth, flutes, and instruments generally are desired as a means to something else… But the highest good is clearly something final (Aristotle 334). He goes on to say that ‘happiness, above all else, fits the description of what we are seeking, for we always desire happiness for its own sake and never as a means to something else” (Aristotle 334). For example, it is payday and you have had, what you deem, the worst week ever. Sure, you have bills to pay, but you are always doing things for everyone else and it is time that you do something for yourself. So you shop. When you are done shopping, you feel relieved and excited that you have a new outfit. Now, I can be sexist and make this seem as a total female thing, but I, myself, know plenty of males who blow their money on shopping just to make themselves happy. In other words, material things are what make us happy in the end and Aristotle says that in the end, the ultimate outcome is happiness. Now I am not saying he intended us to be materialistic, rather, Aristotle claimed that “we may safely then define a happy man as one whose activity accords with perfect virtue, it is necessary to consider virtue, as this will perhaps be the best way of studying happiness… It is clear that it is human virtue which we have to consider; for the good which we are seeking is, as we said, human good, and the happiness, human happiness. By human virtue or excellence we mean not that of the body, but that of the soul, and by happiness we mean an activity of the soul” (Aristotle 336). The ultimate question is; how is happiness attainable? Aristotle goes on to list things such as wisdom and intelligence that come from teaching as well as generosity and self-control which stem from habit. “From this fact it is clear that no moral virtue is implanted in us by nature; a law of nature cannot be altered by habituation” (Aristotle 338). Basically, Aristotle believes that happiness just happens and that “it is said that there is no difference between the happy and the miserable during their lifetime” (Aristotle 337). Another piece of evidence that also backs up this claim of Aristotle’s happiness is that “A stone naturally tends to fall downwards, and it cannot be habituated or trained to rise upwards, even if we were to throw it upwards ten thousand times… It is neither by nature then nor in defiance of nature that virtues are implanted in us. Nature gives us the capacity of receiving them, and that capacity is perfected by habit” (Aristotle 338). Growing up, we have often been told to treat others the way we are to be treated; the golden rule. Aristotle would agree with the parent who teaches their child this saying “thus it is no small matter which habits are instilled in us in early childhood; on the contrary, this makes a considerable difference, or rather all the difference” (Aristotle 338). In my opinion, there is not too much of the golden rule going on anymore.
Mencius was an only child, and being an only child myself, I think we naturally feel and understand the qualities Mencius describes and believes in his On Human Goodness piece is that we are “endowed” with: “a sense of pity, of shame, of respect, and of right and wrong” (Mencius 339) from birth. In other words, as only children, we feel these emotions regardless of the situation, whereas a brother or sister may be able to split the emotions. However, I do believe all individuals feel these emotions or “qualities” regardless of the amount of siblings. “From his sense of pity comes jen (Humanity); from his sense of shame comes yi (Justice); from his sense of respect, li (the observance of rites); from his sense of right and wrong, chih (wisdom). Jen, yi, li and chih do not soak in from without; we have them within ourselves. It is simply that we are not always consciously thinking about them. So I say, ‘Seek them and you have them. Disregard them and you lose them’” (Mencius 341). Mencius who said “man’s nature is neither inherently good nor bad” and that “a man can be made to do evil, but this is nothing to do with his nature. It happens only after the intrusion of some exterior force” (Mencius 340). In a sense, I believe that Mencius encourages the individual to go with the flow, much like Aristotle would enjoy.
Even though Immanuel Kant argues Aristotle’s point in his excerpt The Good Will and Morality, I would agree that good will is an attribute of happiness. I would also contest that it is a formed habit. Kant argues that intelligence and “other talents of the mind… are undoubtedly good and desirable in many respects. However, these gifts of nature may also become extremely bad and mischievous if the will or character that puts them to use is no good” (Kant 344). Kant also argues that “the true purpose of reason, for which it was absolutely necessary, is to produce a will that is good in itself and not merely as a means to something else. While this will is not the sole and complete good, it must be the supreme good that is the condition of every other good, even of the desire of happiness” (Kant 346). In other words, the action must be motivated by the nature of intention rather than some other external factor; such as self gratification. The action must be motivated by good will. A formed habit would include generosity and Kant would agree that generosity would be more meaningful coming from someone who has not been habitually made generous; that is, someone being generous out of the blue has more good will than someone who is generally generous.
In Jeremy Bentham’s The Principle of Utility, Bentham goes on to say that happiness is simple; increase the pleasure and decrease the pain. Bentham brings some Mencius in by saying “on the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects are fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think: every effort we can make to throw off our subjection, will serve but to demonstrate and confirm it” (Bentham 351). Bentham goes against Kant in that he, Bentham, believes that seeking pleasure and avoiding pain are natural inclinations when it comes to forming morality. Basically, the principle of utility requires the individual to choose between the outcomes of pain or pleasure. I am sure there are plenty of masochists’s to go around.
As human beings, we are generally social beings. I would say, that being social is an attribute to human happiness, through the basis of morality. In Enrique Jose Varona’s The Sentiment of Solidarity as the Foundation of Ethics, Varona believes that morality is based off of social solidarity and that one develops through interactions with other people. Varona claims that “morality is nothing but the individual’s more or less clear sentiment of his dependence upon the social body—in a word, of social solidarity” (Varona 354). As humans, we tend to conform to those who have similar tastes as us, whether it be in one form, or many saying “the majority of men can lack even the most remote idea of what solidarity is, yet all their emotions, images, ideas, and judgments with respect to their fellows will nevertheless be comprised within this supreme sentiment” (Varona 355).
With this being said, I believe modern society has lost their way from what it truly means to be happy. We have become materialistic is many ways; it is about who has the best clothes, who drives the fanciest car, who has the best job, who has the most money. In a sense, we have lost our solidarity in that we have the urge to be better than each other. We are being raised that it is not what you know, it is who you know. I am not saying happiness is easy to obtain. Hell, if it was, I would have been jumping for joy the last ten years of my life. The saying that there are many bumps on the road of life holds true, but it is up to the individual to approach it in a way of either what is going to cause the most pain and what is going to cause the most pleasure, what will give me the gift of intelligence, a better sense of right a wrong, and whether or not what we are doing is out of the pure goodness of our heart. We create our own happiness. Philosophers have been trying to tell it to us for years. I think it is about time we just shut up and listen.
