In Happiness: Enough Already, Sharon Begley makes a case for the modern views of happiness and sadness by providing different professional opinions on the the happiness industry, some believe happiness is the sole purpose of life while others believe it is equal to sadness. Jerome Wakefield, a professor at New York University, is approached by many students with complaint concerning their parents’ opinions on dealing with depression, which consist of antidepressants and counseling. Ed Diener, a psychologist, at the University of Illinois, raised to question the idea of a national index of happiness to the Scottish Parliament. Eric Wilson, a professor, at Wake Forest University, tried to embrace becoming happier but ended up embracing the importance
In Franny, Franny Glass returns from college and meets her boyfriend, Lane, at the train station before the two of them go out to lunch. When they arrive at the restaurant, it is obvious that there are issues between them. Franny repeatedly claims to have missed Lane, but then discovers that she does not mean it. Lane comes off as extremely pretentious and Franny is torn between her annoyance towards him and her anger at herself for being critical. Franny reveals how she has been going through a phase where she has been noting but cynical and judgmental about everything.
However, their intentions ultimately lead to temporary happiness, long term problems mainly due to the fact that they expel the thought of intrinsic
That it makes the world better and have more control over people. Yet that's the thing, if you control people, they aren't really themselves. Yes it's good to give and serve, but it's also good to stick up for yourself and not get pushed around. ”Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievements of one’s values.”- ( Ayn Rand.)
Ultimately, the many benefits outweigh the consequences in many
Thus, when human function is done well, it is in accordance with virtue and best human life is achieved. In addition, it can be inferred that since Aristotle’s definition of happiness is to be virtuous, performing rational activity well can lead to happiness. In addition, Aristotle states, “if there are more than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most complete” (1098a18). This means that eventually there will be one virtue that is inclusive of all virtue and that displays an end, and this virtue will be in line with the self-sufficient and inclusive concept of happiness as the chief good. If this inclusive virtue and good is achieved, ultimate happiness will be achieved as well.
But according to the discussions above, if to choose between meeting the basic needs and human rights, which one will make people happier? Or, based on the example above, a slave with abundant things to eat and a comfort bed to sleep, compared with a hobo with nothing to eat and nowhere to sleep, but has the freedom to do whatever he/she wants, who is happier? Probably slavery is a process of self-realization, which helps slaves find their personal value through their hard work. When making the evaluation of happiness, some people put more weight to human rights, while others make basic needs as their priority. People’s view towards happiness, or utility, differs, therefore it may be a little bit problematic to judge whether an action is moral or not by evaluating whether it will bring happiness to people.
For instance, we could look at the idea of getting a new puppy. For example when you get a new puppy peoples moods would be happier than if you didn’t have a new baby puppy. You could look at it like this; if you have a puppy you will be feeling happy and satisfied. Therefore, you would like the current political system and be happy with the work of our president. On the contrary if you don’t have happiness in your life you will probably be less likely to be satisfied with the president.
he movie titled “The Pursuit of Happyness”, there was a problematic family living in San Francisco in 1981. The main character, Chris Gardner worked as a salesman invested his entire life savings in portable bone density scanner to support his family including his wife Linda and a five years old son Christopher. However, Chris’ business was not doing well and his wife was forced to work. Day after day, Linda was suffering and she always quarrelled with Chris and blamed him for didn’t play the role as a responsible father and a good husband. Luckily, this was not the end for Chris.
But let us not get too tied up with the bad. There are also some good things that can happen as well. Extending the average human life span will mean people would have a better understanding of their family history, give people enough time to accomplish more things in life, and give people enough time to have kids. He wants you to answer all of those questions in the last sentence.
Over the last 100 years, the figure of the psychopath has become increasingly central to fictional depictions (Bentham 2012: 7). Representations have made the portrayals of the psychopathic murderer as hero, as portrayed in American television drama series of Dexter derived from the novel Darkly Dreaming Dexter (2004) by Jeff Lindsay. Lindsay offers a unique perspective on this trajectory in that he places his psychopath in the central, heroic role, thus subverting traditional morality. Dexter Morgan, a blood spatter pattern analyst for Miami Metro Police Department who also leads a secret life as a serial killer, hunting down criminals who have slipped through the cracks of the justice system. Dexter is the embodiment of Kristeva’s abject notion of the
(Mill, utilitarianism, p.697) To put this into simpler terms, Mill is essentially saying events or experiences are desirable only when it is a source for pleasure, so actions are good when they lead to higher levels of general happiness and they are deemed as bad when it lowers your general level of happiness. However, it is important to note utilitarianism doesn’t say it is morally right for everyone to purse what make them alone happy but instead morality is dictated by what increases the total amount of utility in the world. Pursuing your own happiness at the expense of the majority of social happiness would be viewed as wrong by utilitarian’s. Mill then proceeded to say that morality requires impartial consideration of the interest of everyone involved, its not just about your own happiness.
But if you think of all the pros as to how and why money can buy happiness it can change the mindset of an individual and they can decide whether or not the statement is true. Some of the pros as to how money can buy happiness is that you can buy time, live your life to the fullest and live life freely without worries. As we all know money is a necessity to be able to live in the world, without it we would all probably be in quite a dilemma, as would have to strive and find ways to live. This is why money is an important aspect of life which allows people to live a happy
Unfortunately, this does not lead to their happiness and their actions cause them to be burdened with quilt. Shakespeare uses the Macbeths to teach us that it is not always the thing that you get but also the way you achieve it. Even if you do something bad and do not get caught for it, the punishment will catch up to you at
