Flanagan Chapter 6, Virtue And Its Relationship To Happiness Essay

As far as we know, the question of virtue’s connection to happiness came out of the context of society. Though it is possible that this question arose in earlier human communities, we do know that strong arguments for this viewpoint arose from ancient Greek cultures, advocated by Aristotle, and also from the Buddhist tradition in the East. This idea makes sense, as modern humans exist within the context of a society. As Flanagan points out in Chapter 6, Buddhism is founded on this basic idea that happiness is a product of perspective that results from culminating virtue in one’s life.
/> For a Buddhist, virtue is deeply rooted in and almost synonymous with compassion. Buddhism is less about holding onto belief and more about cultivating a state of being that makes the truth of these beliefs apparent. Instead of offering specific beliefs that explain reality, it focuses on offering the path towards reaching a state of enlightenment whereby the truth of life becomes evident. Rather than present a system of beliefs it becomes more useful to offer the steps that lead one to enlightenment, or a state of sustained happiness.
Compassion and loving-kindness are two virtues in the Buddhist tradition that are needed to cultivate a state of happiness. Flanagan writes, “Compassion and loving-kindness are major virtues for the Buddhist, so much so that the Buddhist picture of the eudaimon is described often in terms of wisdom (prajna) and compassion (karuna), where karuna is substituted for more general term for virtue, sila, and is conceived as the master virtue” (Flanagan, 167).
Love for others in Buddhism, is a virtue, whereas self-love, is a poison that prevents happiness. Aristotle advocated a similar theory for the connection between virtue and happiness, but his philosophy forwards a necessary connection between virtue and happiness, and his argument was unaccommodating to reaching happiness by other means.
Buddhism does not play up the need for a necessary connection between virtue and happiness as much as Aristotle’s belief in the necessary connection between virtue and happiness. As a result, Buddhism’s assertion in the connection between the culmination and practice of compassion and loving-kindness is less open for philosophical attacks aimed at providing counterexamples, which negate the argument.
Given the ecologies of both Buddhist and Aristotelian philosophies, it makes sense in the different frameworks of virtue in the individual leading to happiness in the individual. Aristotle was active during an age of philosophy and logic that demanded neatly laid out systems of its thinkers. The Buddha came from a much different ecology, out of the Hindu tradition where careful contemplation, and feeling was of higher value than deductive reasoning and rigid categorization.
In this way, the connection between virtue and happiness is more inductive than deductive, and unlike Aristotle’s need for a necessary connection between the two, Buddhism advocates a more practical understanding of the connection, which can compliment a modern anthropologist’s assessment of happiness as a product of the individual finding a balance with the whole. Buddhism contains nothing too complex or out of the grasp of comprehension. Problems in beliefs are more likely to arise from understanding them in their literal phraseology than in a lack of understanding in the expression of their meaning. Buddhism in its simplest definition is a road leading to enlightenment of the soul. It does not claim to be the only road but one of many leading to the destination of universal understanding.
In this way, the Buddhist tradition would uphold the Aristotelian tradition, as well as the Christian tradition’s golden rule, as well as a number of other understandings of the connection between virtue and happiness.
Flanagan is aware that any modern take on this connection must be understood also from an evolutionary biologist standpoint, which is an important human understanding that was not known when these beliefs were first being written. In order to accept the Buddhist prescribed system of ethics as a means to happiness in todays terms, one must accept that the fact of our being social animals affects our normative ethics in ways that differ then, the normative ethics that a highly intelligent shark might have. Flanagan writes, “We are social animals who live well only in community with others” (Flanagan, 179).
When considering this, it becomes obvious that maximization of happiness must be down on pathway of either extreme. Buddhism recognizes that every person is on a different level in his or her own moral development. No one is completely free of the three poisons of avarice, delusion and hatred. But one can see how embracing these states are a surefire way to lead someone to unhappiness. These three states could be considered contrary to a state of happiness. The four illimitable are virtues that are not logically consistent with the three poisons. Compassion, loving-kindness, appreciative joy, and equanimity, if present, the Buddhist would conclude that the person possessing them is happy.
Part of practicing these virtues involves the ability to be content with the present. Appreciative joy is joy that is larger than self-joy. If one can learn to find joy not just in his or her own successes, but also the successes of those around him/her, than one can imagine this person always having something to be joyful about. When the lens is focused just on the self, then happiness if more volatile since the individual is going to go through larger swings of change than the state of humanity as a whole. Buddhism’s virtue-happiness link is strong because it creates a state of mind where happiness can flourish. Happiness can flourish because when a Buddhist sees someone suffering, compassion is felt for that suffering. Buddhism’s virtues also instill a compassion for oneself, and realization in the inevitability of change, so that one is not holding on to a previous version of the self, but acceptance of the self in the age it is.
Buddhism as a philosophy has a natural recognition of the varying nature of states, and the impermanence of them within the impermanent individual going through those states. A person, who is happy most days, is also capable of great unhappiness another day. Flanagan does not worry about defining terms he has already defined of “happiness” and the “good life.” But happiness, like human life, is also subject to changes.
I do agree that there is a connection between virtue and happiness, even a casual connection, but believe that whenever discussed that connection must be qualified and seen within the context where it exists. What will always exist is the grayness of this area. Happiness should not be viewed as the difference between a sunny day and a stormy day. Rather, if put into meteorological terms, happiness should be viewed as relative humidity. It is always changing, and exists in terms of degrees.
Some people, caught in negative thinking patterns, or practicing negative behaviors—un-virtuous behaviors of the three poisons—are going to clock consistently low on a happiness scale. Whereas, one who works to culminate the four illimitables, will generally be clocking in high on the happiness scale. This can be seen easily when one considers how there is a real world karma that occurs within our society that makes life easier for people who make life easier for other people. Someone who is constantly displaying hatred towards those in his life, is likely going to find that he has a difficult time navigating through social circles do to the reciprocation of his contempt. Someone who shows compassion and offers help when he can to his fellow humans, is going to be treated gently and will have less personal problems.
There is a real-world karma that plays out in the social world where we life. People who treat others kindly are more likely to be treated kindly than others. People who face life honestly do not have to worry about others targeting them for revenge. The connection between virtue and happiness need not be seen as a spiritual connection, but a connection that has been observed historically, one that makes logical sense, fits within the fitness of the human species, is appropriate behavior for a social animal to thrive, and leads to conditions where happiness has been observed to reside. While an virtuous person may be successful financially in life, it is difficult to imagine their being able to culminate the inner calm associated with the standard use of the word happiness.