I think he sees happiness is one of the most important things in a person’s life. He discusses how to be happy and the things involved. His happiness needs to have friendship, thought, and freedom. I believe Epicurus’s idea that these three things are needed in order to be happy. It is to make sure that the person is not in any sort of physical or mental pain.
The concluding stage which is meaningful life pertains to the deep sense of fulfillment by employing the strengths not only for oneself. The theory reconciles two contradicting views of human happiness between individualistic approach and altruistic approach. The goal to take care of oneself and improve one’s set of potency is reunited with the value of sacrificing for greater function. (http://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org). The last dimension of Martin Seligman’s theory which is meaningful life supports the concept utility of life that existence has a purpose and for others.
I consciously and unconsciously have an attitude towards others that is predominantly positive and open, and most importantly I just really enjoy being responsible for someone else’s happiness, even if it’s momentary. In conclusion, happiness is much more than a “state of mind”, it is an action. The Principle of Utility, by John Stuart Mill, is an equal consideration to all concerned determining the best outcome or consequence. It is a (higher) pleasure that requires much more than immediate gratification. To sum it all up I must use my favorite line from the reading.
For example, an ear fulfills its function if it hears. This is different than listening because hearing is simply the act of perceiving sound while listening you consciously choose to do. Most people agree about what good is and they call it happiness. Therefore the highest of all goods relation to action is happiness. Good is happiness, but people may disagree over what constitutes happiness.
In attempting to predict possible contentions one could have to what has been said, the stability of the argument will be emphasized. Premise 1 of the Utilitarian argument reads that if something beneficial results in overall happiness, and it does no harm to anything else of importance, then you are morally obligated to advocate for it. If one were to for some reason or another oppose this, my best guess would be that they would have a problem with the obligatory factor in it. Perhaps they would think that while it may be good for a person to advocate for something that helped them, that it would not then be entirely necessary to, and thus supererogatory (going beyond the requirements of duty, or greater than what is needed). To contest, I would start by reminding of the central values of utilitarianism, mainly on the idea of the greatest happiness principle and of the greatest overall happiness.
An individual’s welfare can be explained as their state of contentment that can be achieved throughout one’s life. Increasing this state of well-being can be obtained by pursuing and gaining what is intrinsically good for the individual. Experientialism states that subjective experiences are the sole things which are intrinsically good and capable of promoting welfare in individuals. The plausibility of this view arises from the fact that we desire experiences not just for their instrumental benefits, but because they are good ‘in and of themselves’. This view has faced some fervent opposition though, most strongly in the form of Nozick’s Experience Machine.
It isn’t society’s duty to ensure everyone’s happiness, but rather to ensure that all people are given the opportunity to be happy. This means doing away with excessive income gaps and creating opportunity for advancement in society or social mobility, bringing the... ... middle of paper ... ...on the other hand, seeks to promote happiness as an end in itself. Reasonable and moderate versions of both theories really warrant the same action in most cases; for example, giving to charity and avoiding unfairly produced goods. The differences in suggested action only emerge in a few unique situations; the real distinction is in the underlying beliefs supporting the two theories. Deontology promotes a fair opportunity at happiness and self-advocacy, whereas Utilitarianism’s objective is the promotion of happiness.
Mill defines utilitarianism as the quest for happiness. His main point is that one should guide his or her judgements by what will give pleasure. Mill believes that a person should always seek to gain pleasure and reject pain. Utilitarianism also states that the actions of a person should be based upon the “greatest happiness principle”. This principle states that ethical actions command the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.
Is it possible for life to be meaningful or not? According to one of the objective theories, utilitarianism, the meaningful life means that we do the most good for the most people. In other words, the meaningful life is one that promotes the welfare of others or of human-being future generations. There are two theories about the meaningful life, subjective and objective theory. Subjective theory states that the life is meaningful or lot is depending on one’s own personal happiness or psychological health, while Objective theory claims the meaningful life exists outside of us.
He states “ He is happy who lives in accordance with complete virtue and is sufficiently equipped with external goods, not for some chance period but throughout a complete life ” (Nicomachean Ethics, 1101a10). To achieve happiness is to have good moral, or complete virtue. One must not only be virtue, but also act in accordance with virtue. The life of virtue is crucial for happiness. Happiness is the final goal or the end of our life.