Philosophical thought of Aristotle, Socrates, Buddha, Kant, Mill, and Rand

Happiness Now and Then

The pursuit of happiness, though not spelled out explicitly until John Locke proposed it as an unalienable right, is likely the oldest and ultimate endeavor of all mankind. All other pursuits can be seen as merely methods of attaining happiness -- gluttons seek food because it makes them happy (or at least they think it does), artists seek beauty for the same reason, and philosophers seek truth because only in the truth do they believe they will ever find contentment. Given the wide range of philosophies and philosophers that have existed during the course of human history, it is perhaps not too surprising that there are many different views on how to define and achieve happiness.

Socrates, one of the earliest recognized philosophers, was also one of the first to tackle the idea of happiness and of leading a good life. Interestingly, his approach seems to have been to acknowledge a lack of truth and contentment as a way of finding happiness. In essence, according to Socrates, the constant examination of life was tantamount to a state of happiness. In his Apology, Plato ascribes these words to his friend and mentor: "I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage" over other philosophers that believe they know certain truths. Accepting ignorance while still questing for truth is, according to Socrates, the basic way to lead a good and happy life.

Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics, ranks various quests for truth and considers politics and the organization of the state to be the "chief good," or at least the best method for attaining this good. Basically, a happy or good life according to this system of ethics is that which strives for the best accomplishment in all areas of endeavor, and societal cooperation is the best way to achieve things. Aristotle believed that all things had a purpose, and the examples of each class of the things that best fulfilled this purpose was therefore the best individual item. Since politics and leadership is the highest endeavor for human beings (or at least the men during Aristotle's times), the best statesmen were therefore leading the best lives.

Buddha had a very different take on what constituted a good life, and how to find happiness. In its most basic form, Buddhist philosophy requires freedom from the material world and acknowledgement that it is illusory for true happiness to be achieved. Life is full of suffering, and only by acknowledging and accepting this can one break free of the cycle of life and enter into the blissful state of nirvana. Leading a good life mean having compassion for all living things, which would signal an individuals true acceptance and understanding of this cycle of suffering. A good life is that which was lived with compassion, and happiness comes form eliminating desires.

Modern philosophers have had remarkably different takes on happiness and the way to achieve it. Ayn Rand, for example, developed a theory known as Ethical Egoism. According to this theory of ethics, the only real responsibility an individual has is to survive. This is not even born of an instinct, but of a desire -- individuals desire to survive, and they act accordingly. This means that life is essentially and necessarily selfish, and that a human being can only be expected to act out of their own self-interest in all instances. A good life, then, would be that which is lived the most completely with the aim of individual and personal happiness and survival in mind. Even acts that appear to have selfless motives are either undertaken for long-term selfish reasons, r else are unethical because they come from the perspective of death.

This view is very closely aligned with the theory of Psychological Egoism, which is not really an ethical theory but rather one that attempts to explain human behavior from a biological perspective. Regardless of the perspective, however, the result is the same -- both Ayn Rand's Ethical Egoism and the somewhat more scientific theory of Psychological Egoism suggest that all human behavior comes entirely out of self-interest, and that the way to lead a happy and good life is necessarily to lead it in such a way that provides the most direct individual benefit.

This can be seen as a direct contrast to the theories of Aristotle and Buddha. Aristotle, as mentioned above, believed that cooperation through civic functions was the way to attain happiness and to lead a good and purposeful life (purpose being equated with good, in general). Obviously, self-sacrifice for the benefit of the state or society to any degree is completely unethical according to Rand's theory of Ethical Egoism, and is unnatural according to the tenets of Psychological Egoism. The gathering of material possessions to aid happiness and ensure future survival, which is an essential if not an explicit part of both theories of Egoism, is completely antithetical to the anti-materialism preached in Buddhist philosophy.

The way that modern theories of egoism relate to Socrates is more complex. These theories have come from the pursuit of truth, which was Socrates ultimate goal. However, Socrates felt it necessary to always acknowledge that he knew nothing, and therefore found it imprudent to act in ways that depended on complex theories or the "certainty" of truths. Rand's egoism allows for -- and in fact calls for -- action basd on its determinations. Given the millennia over which the debate has spanned, however, it seems more likely that happiness is a purely individual matter, and is always in a state of flux.

Kant and Mill: Imperatives and Utilities

Two philosophers whose ethical theories have garnered a great deal of ongoing attention are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. These men both exemplify two opposing and extreme ethical theories, both of which deal with the issue of happiness and how it relates to goodness and leading an ethical and purposeful life. There are, of course, many other ethical theories that provide possible insights into human behavior and desires, and the proper ways to attain them. These two theories form the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, however, remain some of the most prominent and contentious of ethical theories, and debates centered on or growing from these two theories still provide not only fodder for intellectual stimulation, but also an increased understanding of human behavior and the universality of moral laws.

The very basic yet fundamental and essential differences in the two ethical theories proposed by Kant and Mill are found in how the two philosophers view the motives and consequences of an action. Kant, who developed his theory earlier than Mill, believed that the only way to determine the moral worth of an act was to discern whether it contributed to or detracted from an essential good will, or the attitude of treating other individuals as ends in and of themselves. This is a basic understanding of the categorical imperative kant theorized, and he extended this attitude to a type of deontological absolutism, where an act was either moral or immoral in all situations, regardless of the individual and specific intention or consequences of this act. One of the most common examples cited to explain this theory is that of the liar. Lying, according to Kant, is simply wrong. Even lying to save a man's life is an immoral act, and the only way to remain consistently good is to refrain from immoral acts regardless of the consequences to oneself or to others. Essentially, the ends never justify the means in Kant's theory, but the ends must be justified on their own merit.

This leads to a complex view of happiness and achieving it in a human life. The god will, that which causes action not for any other perceived benefit or reward, but simply because t fostered continued good, was the only truly moral force according to Kant. Thus, in order to lead a good and happy life under Kant's system of ethics, one would need to devote themselves to a complete moral purity without any equivocation. Isolation would almost certainly become a prominent aspect of such a life, especially as Kant does not deal wit the issue of conflicting duties -- if it is always wrong to lie, and always wrong to hurt someone needlessly, what does one do if asked a direct question when the answer would hurt the asker? This simple example, is simply one of many instances that show the impracticality of Kant's moral and ethical position when life for human beings takes place in a society of other individuals.

Mill's system of ethics, known as utilitarianism, is based entirely and explicitly on practicality. According to the utilitarian ethos, whatever causes the most happiness to the most people -- and/or causes the least unhappiness to the fewest people -- is a moral act. This level of happiness is known as the "utility" of an act, and obviously such utility has a great tendency to shift depending on the specific circumstances. According to utilitarian ethical theory, a lie would be very moral indeed if it increased someone's happiness without creating detriment to anyone -- telling a child that their unintelligible crayon markings is a great picture of a house, for instance, boosts their self-esteem and helps them to feel loved, and no one in the art world suffers for this white lie.