I think happiness should be determined objectively. In this essay, first I will talk about what I mean by using the word “happiness”, and then I will talk about why I think determining happiness is objective. I will object Julia Annas’ arguments on subjectivity of happiness, and use Plato’s and Aristotle’s understanding of happiness to support my view of happiness. Lastly I will use one of John Stuart Mill’s quotes to support my opinions about the objectivity of happiness, and I will object one of Jean-Paul Sartre’s quotes to make clear my point.
Firstly, by happiness I mean something different than pleasure, emotion and desire. These are subjective terms, and if happiness is bound to them, then happiness too should have been determined subjectively. But happiness is something about being a rational animal. Happiness is the difference between being an animal and being a human. And this difference is human intelligence like reason, mind, and wisdom. In that way animals cannot be happy due to their lack of human intelligence. So understanding that happiness is something beyond the pleasure, emotion and desire, it is easier to think that happiness should be determined objectively. Because what makes human animals rational animals is their access to reason. If reason is objective, then happiness should be determined objectively.
Secondly, Plato thinks that reason should be controlling passions/emotions, and passions/emotions should be controlling desires. So in that way by reason we have limited access to our desires according to Plato. Plato also thinks that there are two worlds as ideas and forms worlds. He thinks that in the ideas world, everything is perfect, and we live in the forms world which is a reflection of the ideas world. Plato thinks reason is the only access to ideas world from forms world, and this is key to happiness. But I think nothing can be perfect, and that is why even if Plato is right about being happy is the harmony of reason, passion/emotion and desires, still it would be impossible to be happy since it is impossible to achieve perfection. But other than that, I agree with Plato about determining happiness objectively since he says the key of happiness is reason which is the difference between animals and humans. Aristotle says every single human has a function, and if that function is not fulfilled, then that human cannot be happy. That function is thinking. By thinking, we as species use our essence and gift, and this is the first step to be able to happy. On the other hand, Jean-Paul Sartre thinks that existence is more important than essence. Then he should think that happiness should be determined subjectively, since every human can use his/her existence differently. But our essence is not something to be used differently. Every human has the same essence and that essence is being able to think. That is why I agree with Aristotle and disagree with Sartre. Julia Annas thinks that happiness can be determined subjectively since it is about self-achievement. According to my understanding of happiness, if someone’s life plan is not compatible with reason, then even achieving that life plan does not make that person happy. This achievement can only make him or her satisfied or pleasant. Of course a person can make a choice between two different life plans that are both made according to reason. In that way it is possible to think that happiness is subjective since person can make a choice, but the choice he or she makes is bound to reason, and this is why happiness is objective but not subjective. In the well-known quote of John Stuart Mill, he says that being an unhappy Socrates is better than being a happy pig (in my opinion the word must be “satisfied” since animals cannot be happy). In his saying, J. S. Mill highlights the importance of being human and having human intelligence.
In conclusion, it might be seen logical to prevent thinking to suffer less in a world that contains pain. But preventing thinking to prevent pain is nothing but an illusion of a salvation. The true salvation lies in the very essence of human beings which is thinking, and using reason. A broken pen might be still called as a pen, but it does not function, and a human who does not think might be still called as human but he or she does not function.
Bibliography
Annas J.
“Happiness as Achievement” Deadalus 133.2
(2004)
Aritotle, Nicomachean Ethics, I.1-10; II; X.6-8
Plato, Republic, IV. 439B-445B; IX.588B-591B
Mill, John Stuart. "Utilitarianism." (1996): n. pag. Early Modern Texts. Web. 6 Mar. 2016. <http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/mill1863.pdf>
Yorumlar
Yorum Gönder