All human beings inevitably and naturally desire happiness, but what constitutes happiness opinions usually differ. People believe that happiness may come from the acquisition of good things and objects, but as to what things are good, and why, there is very little agreement. Many seek happiness by acquiring real estate, huge houses and luxury furnishings, nice clothes, in other words, everything that money can purchase. Other individuals seek their happiness by psychological road, drinking, eating, and lovemaking, and, therefore, use their bodies as channels for getting sensuous gratification. Others seek happiness by way of leadership and power in the community, with the idea that the state of being happy depends on the greater number of people who cater to their every whim. Happiness is a subjective and relative notion that consists of various elements that differ from one individual to another and is impossible to measure to find its absolute level.
Definitely, each person eagers to be happy, but what is happiness? How one of the most subjective things on the planet can be defined? Philosophers who write about happiness typically contemplate on the two senses of this notion: happiness as a state of mind and, on the other hand, a life that goes quite well for the person leading it. The first case deals with psychology which studies different mental states. Here, the question should be transformed into, “what is the state of mind that is called happiness?” And the answer is simply pleasure, life satisfaction, and a positive emotional condition. Speaking about the second case, its subject matter is a particular kind of value or, more commonly, welfare, flourishing, well-being, and utility. In this sense, “a well-being sense,” happiness is what benefits a person, makes him better off, is desirable for him and serves his interests. Theories of well-being include hedonism, objective list theories, and desire theories. According to the hedonic tradition and understanding of happiness, the focus is on the integrity of the person and his judgments about the things that make him happy. This tradition is based on the views of Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau. In addition, hedonists identify well-being with experiences of pleasure whereas desire theorists equate this term with the satisfaction of person’s desires and getting what he wants. Both these theories are subjectivist because they ground the state of being happy and well-being in the person’s subjective states.
In contrast, the eudaimonic tradition derives from the conception of Aristotle about prudence, good life, justice, and reason. Its goal is to meet people’s full potential, contribute to society, and achieve the morality. Thus, Aristotelians take well-being or eudaimonia to fulfill human capacities and virtuous activities. Besides, “In recent years, a number of psychological theories of eudaimonia have been developed: self-determination theory, the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions and the theory of human flourishing” (Sirgy 19). According to self-determination theory, there are several human needs such as the need for autonomy, relatedness, and competence that contribute to human happiness. The theory of human flourishing suggests that happiness is equal to well-being and includes six dimensions such as personal growth, positive relations with other individuals, self-acceptance, autonomy, environmental mastery, and purpose in life. The most famous Greek philosophers, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, associated happiness with wisdom and virtue.
The first great philosopher who developed a whole system of thought around numerous things was Plato. Besides, he was first in Europe to arrive at a clear definition of what the permanent aspects of life were, and, therefore, the notion of permanent happiness. His most famous work is called “The Republic”, in which Plato tries to explain the nature of justice, ideal society, tyranny, and the relationship between wealth and happiness. In Plato’s dialogue, “Gorgias,” he expresses the idea that only good and gentle individuals are really happy, and the evil and unjust are usually miserable. “While the water in the river is always moving and the river is always changing, the idea of the “river” does not change. And that unchanging idea must come from somewhere” (Jamison). For Plato, it came from a particular realm of unchanging and constant ideas, where the perfect idea also exists. In fact, bodies experience decay and change, but minds know and understand that there is something permanent beyond the material. This is the origin of idealism, which means that beyond imperfections of life and ceaseless change, there is a world of perfect ideas, and each object derives its existence from it. Plato believed that immutable and unchangeable ideas lie behind all aspects of life and that the fulfillment of people’s deepest desires leads to happiness.
Plato believed that happiness can be achieved by means of harmonious functioning of various sides of people’s mind and by satisfying their intellectual needs. Besides, he is sure that a person becomes happy when he deals with the best job he is able to do. In his ideal view on society, Plato divides people into three classes. The first class consists of rulers, the second includes soldiers, and, finally, the third class comprises merchants, farmers, and other people. Plato also believed that each person has three souls: the rational soul (intellect), the spirited soul (will), and the appetitive one (emotions, desire). An individual would be happy if he could balance his three parts of the soul. What is more, Plato claims that tyrants are the unhappiest people because they are slaves of their passions and desires and cannot use their reason. That is why he does not draw a parallel between wealth and happiness.
Robert Almeder in his book “Human Happiness and Morality: A Brief Introduction to Ethics” sees moral and ethical principles as obstacles to gaining genuine happiness. “There is no objective way to show that some goals are better or more desirable than others. We may not like Genet’s decision to become the best criminal in the history of France, just as we may not like the fact that he achieved great satisfaction in his judgment that his goal was satisfied” (Almeder 178). Robin Barrow, in his turn, argued against any objective conditions or specific material that might be viewed necessarily for a person to be happy. “A man might be poor, yet happy; he might be sick, yet happy; he might be friendless, yet happy; he might be unpleasant, yet happy; he might even be retired to bed to pass dried peas from one saucepan to another, yet be happy” (Barrow 69). Barrow denies the classical idea that happiness is associated with virtue because he does not see any obstacles for a selfish person to be happy. He believes that the only reliable source for finding out about a person’s happiness is his own report of it. Besides, he is sure that an individual is happy when he or she lives in harmony with the surrounded world and neither seeks ways to withdraw from it nor to reform it.
Happiness is an intangible notion and an individual cannot put it into a pocket or save happiness for later. Therefore, it is difficult to say for sure that happiness can be measured. Nevertheless, researchers believe that it is possible to be done by means of an honest self-report. Besides, “There seems to be no in-principle barrier to the idea of measuring, at least roughly, how happy people are. Investigators may never enjoy the precision of the “hedonometer” once envisaged by Edgeworth to show just how happy a person is” (Haybron). However, this device might be useless even in theory because happiness consists of multiple dimensions that cannot be quantified. Most researchers take easy cases and discern particular patterns across various groups of individuals determining whether widows have a tendency to be less happy than newlyweds. Thus, there is unreliability in attempts to assess individual happiness and talking about absolute levels of this notion. As a result, two morals can be extracted from these reflections. First, honest or dishonest self-reports concerning happiness are the guides to a so-called relative happiness. They can inform of who is happier but tell the researchers very little about how people are really happy. What is more, self-reports center around a particular moment in a person’s life and are not permanent. In addition, as a matter of fact, researchers do not set a certain range of indicators, and the interviewees usually take into account only “hedonic” elements. However, to get more plausible results, it is important not to forget about “eudaimonic” ones that include personal growth, competence, autonomy, etc. Secondly, the comparisons of relative happiness might also be inaccurate in cases of, for example, cross-cultural comparisons because different groups of people tend to have different attitudes to lives and well-being.
Numerous researchers argue that income and happiness are positively related. Indeed, money can provide various benefits such as higher status, luxury housing, entertainment, the ability to travel, better food and healthcare. Skousen states, “The higher the income, then the more secure human rights are, the better average health is, the more equal the distribution of income is. Thus, human rights, health, and distributional equality may seemingly make happiness rise with income.” The author also distinguishes four elements of happiness: employment, recreation, love, and worship. Honest and rewarding employment makes a person happy and brings money, which gives a person a sense of security and stability. Recreation and relaxation are also essential to well-being as they bring positive emotions and memories. Love is an important element of happiness because the majority of people need someone to spend time with, to love and be loved by. Worship is also important because it gives a person a sense of inner harmony and unity with other people. Stevenson and Wolfers found that absolute levels of income play an important role in shaping happiness. Haybron is sure that the relationship between money and happiness depends on the type of theory of happiness a person accepts and on what kind of society one inhabits. He also adds, “There is no definitive list of the main sources of happiness in the literature, but the following items seem generally to be accepted as among the chief correlates of happiness: relationships, engagement in interesting and challenging activities, material and physical security, a sense of meaning or purpose, a positive outlook, and autonomy” (Haybron). Happiness may also involve religion, trust, good governance, etc.
The majority of people seek happiness as the primary and final goal in their lives and state all the time, “I just want to be happy.” However, is it happiness that makes a person life meaningful? Definitely, it matters for both human well-being and mental state because happiness relates to the things that ultimately constitute these two notions. In my opinion, happiness is an integral part of human lives because of its multidimensional nature. For each person, it consists of a different set of elements, and some people need money to be happy, others value health or personal growth and self-expression, but they strive for fulfilling their desires and becoming happy. In general, happiness brings inner harmony and the desire to make other people happy because those who are happy will never insult, offend, or shout at others. Besides, happiness brings ease to an individual and makes his life brighter. There is no universal set of elements that constitute happiness because, in my opinion, happiness is extremely subjective and relative. That is why it is important for each person to find the things that make him happy and make other people happy as well.
Works cited
Almeder, Robert F. “Human Happiness and Morality: A Brief Introduction to Ethics.” Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2000. Print.
Barrow, Robin. “Happiness and Schooling.” New York: St. Martin's, 1980. Print.
Barrow, Robin. “Happiness (Rle Edu K).” Routledge, U of Oxford, 2012. Print.
Carson, Thomas. “Happiness and the Good Life: A Rejoinder to Mele.” The Southwestern Journal of Philosophy 10.2 (1979): 189–192. Web 7 Apr. 2016.
Haybron, Dan. "Happiness." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Web 7 Apr. 2016
Jamison, Christopher. “Finding Happiness: Monastic Steps for a Fulfilling Life.” London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2008. Web 7 Apr. 2016
Morrison, Donald. "The Happiness of the City and the Happiness of the Individual in Plato'sRepublic." Ancient Philosophy 21.1 (Spring 2001): 1-24. Rpt. in Classical and Medieval Literature Criticism. Ed. Jelena O. Krstovic. Vol. 75. Detroit: Gale, 2005. Literature Resource Center. Web. 7 Apr. 2016.
Sirgy, M. Joseph. “The Psychology of Quality of Life: Hedonic Well-being, Life Satisfaction, and Eudaimonia.” Dordrecht: Springer, 2012. Print.
Skousen, Mark. “The Four Sources of Happiness: Is Money One of Them? Income and Satisfaction Are Related.” 2002. Web. 09 Apr. 2016.
Stevenson, Betsey, and Justin Wolfers. “Economic Growth and Subjective Well-being: Reassessing the Easterlin Paradox.” Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2008. Print.
