Dr. Ryan's Happiness Lecture
We have discussed happiness a bit from the standpoint of contemporary science. Now, let's consider where ancient philosophy might contribute to the discussion by overlapping with or extending these perspectives.
This lecture is a running commentary on the philosopher Aristotle. The large question it seeks to address is: ‘What does it mean to say
that ethics is about happiness?'
Human Agents
Aristotle started his consideration of ethics with something so fundamental one might almost overlook it: the structure of human actions.
Every human action deserving of the name aims at something; and that ‘something' is (or, at least seems) a good. Therefore, we might say paraphrasing Aristotle, "the good is that at which all human actions aim."
Another way to say it, is that ethics is rooted in desire, for we need to be ‘moved' to action, and for that we need a felt desire. Where the direct aim of study might be knowledge, the point of human life-where we are defined as "agents"-is the good attainable by and through our actions. Ethics, as a "science," meant helping us to attain what we desire. In other words, to act well and successfully achieve the goals we set.
But in our lives we pursue many good things, and even different kinds of goods. When I pump gas at the filling station, my goal is to get my car in a state to take me somewhere. I had a student once who played soccer well enough to gain a college scholarship. While the latter was an aim, he also confessed that playing soccer for him can be its own reward.
These kinds of considerations led Aristotle to start searching for a term and a concept that would capture the life of human desire and action in one great sweep. He thought that finding this would give ethical study something to aim at. He asked, is there one good for human agents that sums up all the rest? If so, he thought, it would have to be an "ultimate good." That is, this good is not made good by its leading to something else (e.g., gassing up the car). This good would not be one of the things we seek in order to get something else. Further, he said, in addition to being ultimate this good would have to be "self-sufficient." The one who possesses it would not be in a state of wanting anything else.
Is there a name for a good like that (i.e., ultimate and making its possessor self-sufficient)? Aristotle claimed that this what most people have in mind when they use the word "happiness."
"For the present we define as self-sufficient that which taken by itself makes life something desirable and deficient in nothing. It is happiness, in our opinion, which fits this description. Moreover, happiness is of all things the one most desirable, and it is not counted as one good thing among many others."
Now, while Aristotle thought everybody had some idea of happiness when they use the word, most would not be able to give a very good definition. This leads him to start examining what people usually say happiness is. Here are some of the most popular responses:
· Happiness is wealth
· Happiness is health
· Happiness is power
· Happiness is fame
· Happiness is honor
But on examination, Aristotle finds that each of these definitions is wanting: either not really ultimate or not able to make its possessor self-sufficient. For instance, it was clear to Aristotle that wealth couldn't be ultimate, because money was only good when you traded it in for something you really want. (Aristotle couldn't have foreseen the seeming endless shopping made possible by the internet of course.) Being famous, on the other hand, makes you dependent on lots of other people who must continue to know of you. Hardly self-sufficient.
The Human ‘Function' and Happiness
Aristotle turns in another direction for a definition of happiness. His view of the natural order assumed that every existing thing was designed for something, had a "function" of sorts. Rocks are designed to fall to the ground when dropped. Knives, a human artifact, are designed to cut. Among living things, functions are identified with respect to the kind of life an organism has. Plants take in nutrition (soil, water) and sunlight, and grow. Animals, in addition, have senses like sight and hearing, issuing in a distinctive way of inhabiting an "environment." To understand the human function, or what our life is for, we need to identify the distinctive life proper to us.
We share in the life of plants, he implies, in taking in nutrition to grow. We also share in animal life, since like them we respond to stimuli in our environment through our bodily senses. But above these, humans have reasoning. Because it's what distinguishes us, Aristotle states that our function is a life guided by reasoning. Further, the word that Aristotle uses for reason, logos, also signifies the capacity of language. So, it becomes clear that for Aristotle, a reasonable life was a life undertaken with others in societies. (In a later unit, will come back to the idea of "moral reasoning.")
So, for Aristotle happiness will be defined in relation to the kind of life fitting for humans, one that involves reasoning in important ways. Putting this with our earlier point that humans are bodily agents, we can now conclude that happiness will be a life of reasonable actions. Just one more point needs to be made here. Aristotle notes that in ordinary talk we evaluate many things that have a function. The function of a knife is cut, but "a good knife," we say, is one that cuts well. Thus, while human lives generally will reflect reasoning, a "good human life" will be one that ‘reasons and acts well.' Thus for Aristotle, happiness has everything to do with a life that expresses reasoning, and does so excellently.
Here are his words:
"...we state the function of man to be a certain kind of life, and this to be an activity or actions of the soul implying a rational principle, and the function of a good man to be the good and noble performance of these, and if any action is well performed when it is performed in accordance with the appropriate excellence: if this is the case, human good turns out to be activity of soul in accordance with virtue, and if there are more than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most complete." Nichomachean Ethics, Book I
Questions-
1. What do you find appealing in Aristotle's account of human happiness?
2. What do you find most puzzles about it?