Are happiness and morality mutually exclusive?
- Thread starter greenberg
- Start date
I don't actually understand what you're asking, sorry :|. But I'm gonna say that I enjoy the suffering of others(to a point; I'm not really sadistic or anything) and that makes me happy, clearly that is moral? I'll post again when I get some sleep, been up all night again.
No, but the bond is mysterious
No.
It is said of a fictional crime boss that he re-emerged after the Disaster and not so much fought his way to the top as looked around, saw where his competition was, declared himself to be at the top, and watched to see who fell into place around him.
I would postulate the same for happiness. In fact, that was my first application of the concept expressed in the story: Are we happy, or do we simply call ourselves happy?
In the West, it is easily possible to answer, "We are happy." My mother certainly did, and while she seems to have made the claim stick despite everything else, I have yet to figure out the components of her personal happiness. For many others, though, that happiness is illusory, a surrogate invested in worldly distraction. Sufis and Buddhists alike have long had much to say on such points.
Norsefire's point that "being moral is being happy" is credible, but subjective: How happy can the moralist truly be, for instance, if constantly fretting over whether or not his neighbors are having un-Christian sex? In other words, the question arises of how we should define morality, or the state of being moral.
However, in the abstract, a moral balance will lead to happiness. As Camus concluded, we must presume Sisyphus is happy. The practical problem with that point, however, is that happiness seems to merely be. We cannot necessarily know that we are happy, and that is a pretty mystery. Rather, it is something we are, or might become, and not be worried with the question of whether or not we are happy.
No.
It is said of a fictional crime boss that he re-emerged after the Disaster and not so much fought his way to the top as looked around, saw where his competition was, declared himself to be at the top, and watched to see who fell into place around him.
I would postulate the same for happiness. In fact, that was my first application of the concept expressed in the story: Are we happy, or do we simply call ourselves happy?
In the West, it is easily possible to answer, "We are happy." My mother certainly did, and while she seems to have made the claim stick despite everything else, I have yet to figure out the components of her personal happiness. For many others, though, that happiness is illusory, a surrogate invested in worldly distraction. Sufis and Buddhists alike have long had much to say on such points.
Norsefire's point that "being moral is being happy" is credible, but subjective: How happy can the moralist truly be, for instance, if constantly fretting over whether or not his neighbors are having un-Christian sex? In other words, the question arises of how we should define morality, or the state of being moral.
However, in the abstract, a moral balance will lead to happiness. As Camus concluded, we must presume Sisyphus is happy. The practical problem with that point, however, is that happiness seems to merely be. We cannot necessarily know that we are happy, and that is a pretty mystery. Rather, it is something we are, or might become, and not be worried with the question of whether or not we are happy.
i have to agree with Tiassa, though happiness is subjective its not nearly as externally subjective as morality.
Yes acting morally can limit your happiness, for instance if i helped a pt commit sucide because it was moral to do so i may well know inside i did the right thing but thats not really going to make me happy for the 25 years i spend in prision
however in my opinion acting in a tollerant way to everyone makes sociaty as a whole more happy so on a grand scale i guess the answer is a no
that being said i would sugget the real answe is that morality and happyness are 2 seprate concepts which have little to do with eachother. You dont have to be imoral to be happy and yet sometimes acting morally will make you unhappy
Yes acting morally can limit your happiness, for instance if i helped a pt commit sucide because it was moral to do so i may well know inside i did the right thing but thats not really going to make me happy for the 25 years i spend in prision
however in my opinion acting in a tollerant way to everyone makes sociaty as a whole more happy so on a grand scale i guess the answer is a no
that being said i would sugget the real answe is that morality and happyness are 2 seprate concepts which have little to do with eachother. You dont have to be imoral to be happy and yet sometimes acting morally will make you unhappy
see sam heres the problem with this thread
Someone who DID get off on that (oh just as a side note, who really cares how they molest them?) would in general, claim that it is moral to have sex with 10 year olds.
Morality isnt some outside imposed thing like the law after all.
Someone who DID get off on that (oh just as a side note, who really cares how they molest them?) would in general, claim that it is moral to have sex with 10 year olds.
Morality isnt some outside imposed thing like the law after all.
SAM to add to my former post i would just like to point out an exercise we had to do as part of "Just Health" on values. We had to list the values of a different groups of people like tiranical rulers and sammeri worrors. If you look at the tirranical ruller there core value (which is another way of saying ethics) is that everyone MUST submit to his rulership. Now im sure this made HIM happy but i doubt it made sociaty happy
There is no problem with this thread.
The OP question is a standard question in courses on ethics.
Cybernetics
Registered Member
I am a profound sceptic of morality and would be described by most people as a "Self Centered Bastard" but I belive that I always come first and having sat down to think about it carefuly:
I can find no happyness in morality that is not created by the sole existence of that morilty which society has found is good, the act itself provides no pleasure unless you have been condisiond by your suroundings to do so.
I can find no happyness in morality that is not created by the sole existence of that morilty which society has found is good, the act itself provides no pleasure unless you have been condisiond by your suroundings to do so.
No. Happiness and morality are subjective terms, so there is every chance they could coincide.
Your opinion, perhaps? It would be preferable to the rather condescending 'Discuss.' you tagged on to the end of your question.
I agree with the coinciding part. I don't mind if he offers an opinion or not; you think it's condescension, but maybe he's just not sure and wanted to know what others thought.
No, they are not. You are barring yourself from submitting to human nature. Humans are naturally violent. But if you are a pacifist, you are defying human nature in order to live a more moral life. That is just one example I came up with from the top of my head, and there are certainly many others. But the point is, you may often be tempted to do something against your morals, and it may frustrate you, but after getting past it you'll be glad you held to your morals.
Under certain circumstances.
Rubbish.
Any proof that denying your own nature is cause for happiness?
I believe that it's one of the causes of depression...
Are they?
Is it impossible that there would be a limited number of things that truly make humans happy that are true for all humans?
Oh, sorry.
Like I said, the OP question is a standard one in ethics classes, and as such, I didn't think it needed further elaboration as I presumed everyone was more or less familiar with that.
But personally, I haven't made up my mind on the matter yet. I do think that if God exists and is good, then happiness and morality should not have to be mutually exclusive - even though it is a common everyday experience that they seem to be.
For example, a couple of years back, after having been an almost complete vegetarian for some 15 years, I decided to go back to meat-eating, and did so for about a year and a half. The main reason for this decision was that perhaps in order to be happy and to succeed in this world, I need to engage in activities that I find reprehensible. Meat-eating didn't make me any happier though, nor did it help in bettering my position in this world - although, again, it is hard to say whether meat-eating was the deciding factor; but given my circumstances, it was one of the few factors I could change about my life in order to be more like the statistical average of the population. (I did address those other factors, too.)