Happiness: A right or a reward?
Should happiness be a right or a reward?
In other words, should people have to earn happiness?
My view is that since humans are generally selfish, happiness then becomes a scarce resource: The happiness for one individual comes at the expense of the happiness of another. And if contentment has such negative drawbacks, it cannot be a right (how would everyone be able to be happy if there are some people who are expected to be at a loss?). Therefore, one must strive to earn it.
I know that the definition of happiness is relative. But what happens when the definition of such a word for one individual encroaches upon the well-being of another?
In other words, should people have to earn happiness?
My view is that since humans are generally selfish, happiness then becomes a scarce resource: The happiness for one individual comes at the expense of the happiness of another. And if contentment has such negative drawbacks, it cannot be a right (how would everyone be able to be happy if there are some people who are expected to be at a loss?). Therefore, one must strive to earn it.
I know that the definition of happiness is relative. But what happens when the definition of such a word for one individual encroaches upon the well-being of another?
Comments (40)
Neither. It is a condition, an internal state. It isn't given to you.
Quoting Abdul
I don't see why any one person's happiness necessarily comes at the cost of someone else's. How does my happiness interfere with yours?
You say happiness is a state. But it can also be affected by external circumstances (e.g. other people). So, if other people can affect the state of your happiness shouldn't they get a right to decide how you should receive it?
------
One example in which the happiness of one can negatively affect someone's else's: Let's say that your happiness is winning the lottery. You winning it would give you happiness but it would come at the cost of someone else's: they wouldn't receive the money. So by voluntarily playing the lottery, you are agreeing to taking away someone's happiness if you receive yours.
Happiness is not in the gift of anyone but yourself. It cannot be a right nor a reward, since it is not a thing whose supply is restricted by the state or any other legislative body.
Quoting Abdul
What a nasty and mean view of life you have!!
What twisted ideology has led you to this absurd position?
I'm starting to agree with you and Clark: Since happiness is a condition dependent upon your desires and ambitions, you have control over it. Not someone else.
-----------
As for the second part, I believe that there are some people that do exist that live happily robbing others of their contentment, whether it be intentional or unintentional. That is why we have greedy coworkers, CEOs, and, some may argue, president.
We live in a heavily interconnected world. The closer we become, the more our values and deepest treasures will be exposed and exploited.
Other people have an effect on how I experience my life. They are responsible for the things they do. Only I have responsibility for how I react to what they do.
This is pretty harsh. Nothing Abdul has written gives me the impression he has a mean or nasty view of life. His posts are always curious and open. I sense a good-hearted person with reasonable questions.
So is happiness simply a reaction to external circumstances?
Thank you for the compliment and understanding, T Clark.
----
You stand on firm philosophical ground, I've noticed!
Happiness can happen at any time, quite unexpectedly, and it might be quite spontaneous, as some people have shared. It just happens. Usually, I guess, it is always, followed at some point by neutral and then sadness. Life is quite cyclical.
I have been unhappy, and I have been happy. I can't say exactly what caused either state.
Each person is, though, in charge of their own pursuit of happiness. Maybe they do a good job of pursuing happiness, maybe not. Other people contribute to their happiness, and other people detract from their happiness. One should try to avoid people, places, and things that make one unhappy.
If your spouse is making you unhappy, if you hate the city you live in, and your car is a hateful pile of junk, you should try to get free of these problems: divorce, moving somewhere else, and getting a different car. It doesn't make sense to change your attitude while staying in a bad marriage in a city you hate with a car that is more trouble than it is worth.
Maybe you are stuck where you are, for various reasons. Happiness may just not be in the cards. You may have to settle for being cheerful instead of happy.
That's you. Not me.
Try and read his post again What do you not understand by the phrase "My view is that since humans are generally selfish, happiness then becomes a scarce resource: The happiness for one individual comes at the expense of the happiness of another."
. Try not to be a snowflake.
He also likes a good massage.
You're kind of a dick. As you explained in a previous post, that's not an ad hominem attack.
Did I mention that you're a dick?
I don't think what most people believe happiness to be is zero sum. As people were mentioning --
it's more a way of living-- acting in ways consistent with your values, not being deprived of basic resources (food, water, shelter, emotional support), having a sense of autonomy, having satisfactorily organized your career or life around a personally valued higher purpose or principle (a cause, a faith).
Seems to me that while Abdul and Clark are giving valid points of view all your doing is being a dick and writing a whole lot of bullshit. Why don't you just leave the real writing to the adults and find somewhere else to be a bratty little child.
You'll never have me sweetie! I'm out of your league.
You're new here. You'll find that a little dickiness is par for the course. For what it's worth, Charleton sometimes has interesting things to say.
We do not wish to make paedophiles "happy". Some people become happy via murdering, slaughter, abusing, exploitation, raping, kidnapping etcetera.
Happiness is not a right.
Don't see the connection.
I feel like happiness is more of a balance and process and not a point in time. Look up the hedonic treadmill. It states that no matter how good or bad things are, eventually your levels of happiness will settle to normal.
I, of course, can't be sure, but I believe that what Kitty is saying is that for some, happiness is giving in to our dark side. And that may include all the things that were listed and more. So, if that is the case, then happiness isn't a right.
Who is part of the universal consensus that decides who wishes to make who happy? For some, pedophiles have much of a right as other people.
In other words, who is the authority that decides that pedophiles should not be granted happiness?
I believe that the authority would be our moral conscience. If allowing a paedophile to achieve happiness was at the expense of someone's child becoming their prey, how can anyone in good conscience allow them to achieve happiness.
Very valid point, Joe. Maybe there is some sort of nearly universal moral conscience that forbids such behavior
I think, although I may be remembering incorrectly, everything other than the quote I included was added after my response.
Either way, in my first response, I specifically said happiness is not a right. I also said that my happiness does not necessarily interfere with anyone else's. That's all I said.
Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
Just reporting on my own experiences and what I have observed of others. Life appears to be cycles of up and downs.
While this is true, I would also add that with these ups and downs, we also have periods of time when we are experiencing neither happiness or sadness. When we are just in an emotional limbo if you will. Some would argue that you are always feeling something, but I am of the opinion that there CAN be times when we feel nothing. When our minds are so busy with other mundane thoughts or we are caught up in a physical, or mental activity, such as when we are busy with work, we can experience some gaps between when we have our next feeling. Be it happiness, sadness, anger or any other emotion.
When he's not being a dick and a charlatan.
You are confusing the a-morality and moral impairment of psychopaths with their alleged happiness. Psychopaths are generally not happy; they are also generally not remorseful. And besides, one doesn't have to be a psychopath to murder, slaughter, abuse, exploit, rape, kidnap, and so on.
And paedophiles per se are not psychopaths either. (Are you English? Australian? You spelled it paedophile; nothing wrong with that, of course, if it makes you happy. Some people spell it pedophile, which is not more correct or less. You also didn't use the Oxford comma, so my geo-grammarian locator tool is confused.)
Pedophiles don't choose to be pedophiles; they just are--not that they should be turned loose on the nearest elementary school, either. But within the limits of the law and what society considers acceptable, yes -- they too may pursue happiness.
Sometimes while.
How do you know? It depends on how you define happiness. Everyone experiences it differently. They clearly derive some kind of enjoyment from their criminal activity or they wouldn't feel so urged to repeat it.
The correct spelling should be paedophile as it originates from the greek word "?????" = child, which contains an a=? and an e=?.
How so I know? I conducted a survey of 3329 practicing psychopaths (they're listed in the phone book) and asked them if they were happy. 22% said they were happy, 73% said they were not happy, and 5% said that providing me with a slow and painful death might make them slightly happier than they were at the time.
Quoting CuddlyHedgehog
True, and I suppose I don't know whether psychopaths are happy. However, people who are psychopaths, and not merely slightly to somewhat psychopathic (a much larger group) don't seem to be happy. They don't connect with other people very well, they don't attach. The connections between their fore-brains (frontal cerebral cortexes) and limbic systems may be structurally impaired. Does serial murder makes a classic psychopath happy? I don't think so.
Remember, psychopathy is abnormal; so is sociopathy. The normal routes to normal (and socially acceptable) satisfactions do not seem to be open to them.
Sounds legit.