It is to make sure that the person is not in any sort of physical or mental pain. Having all three aspects of his happiness would keep a person from going into a depressed state and they would help satisfy the basic needs of a person so he or she would live life pain free. On the other hand, Nozick believes that there is more to happiness than what Epicurus’s version is. Nozick said “we also can show that more matters than pleasure or happiness by considering a life that has these but otherwise empty, a life of mindless pleasures or bovine contentment or frivolous amusements only, a happy life but a superficial one” (102). Nozick is talking about how it is better for people to have more to life than just a happy but unaware life.
This, however, being a fact, we have not only all the proof which the case admits of, but all which it is possible to require that happiness is a good” (Mill 27). Simply, the normal rules concerning one’s desire for happiness do not apply. Happiness may mean different things to different people but as long as the quest of these desires do not inflict pain on others, this is an acceptable means to an end. Mill is ultimately successful in that he points out that contrary to popular belief, utilitarianism is not a completely selfish motivation that does not take into consideration the desires of others. Virtue, while not completely synonymous with happiness, is a constituent of it.
There are other intrinsic values that shape an individual’s quality of life. In conclusion, false happiness is in no shape or form real happiness. It is simply an illusion created to display the same satisfaction as feeling true
Honour is external, but happiness is not. It has to do with how people perceive one another; the good life is intrinsic to the... ... middle of paper ... ...that happiness is not found in amusement for it is too incongruous to end in amusement, and that our efforts and sufferings would be aimed at amusing ourselves. A flourishing life—a happy life, is one that consists of numerous requirements having been fulfilled to some degree. These include those things that preserve and maintain physical welfare such as, a certain level of material wellbeing, health, satisfaction, good familial and friendship bonds, and a comely appearance. Additionally, certain intellectual and moral needs ought to be met as well.
He also talks about how emotionless people tend to be better off, so what would happen if we chose to pick neither of his choices. Would we better off or would we be worse off? This question will depend on whether or not Nozicks arguments are flawed, if they are than it would not make sense to choose either one. According to Nozicks experiments happiness is not all people consider when they live their lives because if it was just happiness than they would be content with the small amount of happiness they get. If Nozicks arguments are proven to be flawed, then I would choose to rebuff both while creating my own choice of how I would desire to experience my happiness.
Deontology focuses on respecting the autonomy and humanity of others, basically preaching equal opportunity. Utilitarianism does not specify any means by which to obtain happiness—happiness is its only mandate. While happiness sounds like a great end goal, it is a rather impractical one and the lack of consideration of motivations and means of utility-increasing actions has some serious negative consequences. I prefer Deontology over Utilitarianism for its focus on individual’s rights, opportunity, and personal autonomy. Utilitarianism’s advocacy of happiness by any means is what concerns me about the theory.
It is important to distinguish between freedom’s kinds of values, because in defining a system of government, the attitude towards freedom is a key component. If freedom has no independent value, different schools of political thought might have the standpoint, that we should not value freedom at all, only the things that it is means to. Some might think that they know better what is good for people, and feel justified in constraining people’s freedom. We intuitively value freedom, and usually do not even notice, that we have it, because it woven through so much of our everyday life. We take freedom for granted, even though in some countries it is not so trivial.
The irrational soul has two aspects. The vegetative aspect, which deals with nutrition and growth and has little connection to virtue and the appetitive aspect, which governs out impulses. Virtue is critical to achieve happiness through some sort of learning and reasoning. Some may argue that happiness requires some external prosperity however this paper has proven that happiness is a good in itself. There may be perplexity as to whether happiness comes to be through divine allotment or even through chance however it is something that can be gained through learning or habituation.