The definition of happiness varies from one person to another depending on the context and aim of the definition. Therefore, Happiness is defined by various people in different contexts, but its main meaning is retained. This paper is going to analyze various views of Happiness from different people.
People exhibit three forms of life, which comprise a life of political affairs, life of study, and life of joy. Each of these lives has a parallel amount of happiness. Even though it requires some external fortunes and social interactions, a person’s happiness entails excellence and independence (Hughes 52).
Shakespeare suggests that happiness is determined by social security and acceptance. This is represented by characters from all diverse backgrounds whose happiness is determined by their social relationships with others. Aristotle appreciates that joy depends on a person’s purpose and the uppermost good that he hopes to attain. The truest happiness arrives through the task of a person’s highest function: the utilization of the coherent rule of mind (Hughes 57).
Based on this principle, Aristotle classifies varied types of lives and illustrates the impending happiness each can provide. The first one is “The universal run of individuals and the crudest,” which identifies happiness with a life of joy. The second one is “The civilized and vigorous men”, which gets joy in the life of political affairs based on reputation. A thoughtful life gives a person the highest amount of happiness because it involves life, which is strongly minded by actions. This contrasts with sheer possession. Aristotle argues that since the achievement of any person is determined by the accomplishment of his goals, then the happiness of a person can simply be achieved through the accomplishment of his goals (Raymond 2013).
Aristotle unreservedly distinguishes joy on the maximum order level as a position achieved through the inner improvement of an individual, rather than the social improvement. A person is by character, a political and a social creature; therefore self-effectiveness cannot be defined in orientation to self-loneliness. Aristotle understands joy on the uppermost level as essentially independent (Hughes 67).
Aristotle criticizes the ordinary run of persons who select the life of joy, which they capriciously obtain and lose. Although he views the political life from the perspective of prominence on nobility and excellence, Aristotle judges it as too trivial as it depends on those who bestow it, rather than those who obtain it. The uppermost happiness is achieved internally and independently by the implications of intellectual growth putting into effect the cogent part of the mind. Regarding self–sufficiency as the main component of happiness, moral good is a person’s ownership, which cannot be taken away from him without effort (Raymond 2013).
According to Shakespeare, the happiness of a person depends on the way he or she perceives his or her social position and acceptance. For instance, Roderigo hangs around for the love of Desmonena. However, Roderigo’s incapability to win Desmonena’s love results in frustrations. Casino desires to regain the conviction of Othello, but he cannot look up the lost honor since he fails to identify Lagos’s operations. Although Othello obtains happiness through Desdemona, his happiness was found short-lived when his social insecurity outweighed his mind and untangled his marital happiness. People need the feeling of social reception before attaining pleasure (Raymond 2013).
According to Utilitarianism, Bentham‘s moral theory postulates that human happiness is just the attainment of joy and avoidance of pain. He further argues that the hedonistic value of a person’s action is simply evaluated by considering the intensity of pleasure felt, the time that felt pleasure ends, the sureness and quickness of the presentation of action, and the possibility to create collateral gains and avoidance of the collateral injuries. Considering all these matters, a net value of every action for any person impacted arrives (Kemerling 2011).
According to the principle of utility, the happiness of a community is the sum of every person’s interests. Moral responsibility is defined based on the uppermost cheerfulness of the maximum number of individuals who are impacted by the act of a task. Punishing a criminal is a correct method of combating a crime because it hampers the possible results of the action. Therefore, actions are right relative to the encouragement of happiness, and wrong as they have tendencies to create the opposite of happiness, which is pain (Kemerling 2011).
The economics of joy donates an aspect to the behavior of economics that lifts queries about its value in the scrutiny of the public rule. Habituation happiness is the actuality that the reported happiness of people relapses to the bottom level. Behavioral economists define projection bias as the tendency of people to mistake the present situations for permanence; for instance, purchasing a lot of food during hunger. Habituation means that joy does not react to durable changes, and the projection bias means that pleasure reacts excessively to impermanent changes (Arik 2012).
Conclusion
Happiness is the eventual end and purpose of human life. It is neither a pleasure nor a virtue. It is the application of virtue. Happiness cannot be realized till an individual dies. Hence it is a target and not an impermanent situation. Happiness is the excellence of a person’s nature. Because a person is a cogent animal, human pleasure is determined by the application of his reason. Happiness needs intellectual meditation because this is the final realization of a person’s normal abilities.
Works Cited
Arik, Lavinson. Happiness, Behavioral, Economics and Public Policy. New York, Henry Bolt and Co., 2012.
Hughes, Gerald. Philosophy Guidebook to Aristotle on Ethics. London: Routledge, 2001.Print.
Kemerling, Garth. “Pages of Philosophy.” Utilitarianism. New York: MacMillan, 2011.
Raymond, Bradford. “Happiness and Social Acceptance”. Aristotle and Shakespeare. 2013: n. pg.