In the third century BCE, when philosophy and science were still the same discipline, Aristotle outlined his view of the good. Aristotle declared the supreme, complete, final human good to be happiness, in that there is no good better than or equal to it, it leaves us wanting nothing, and it is sought simply for its own sake. Since then, philosophy and science have diverged, but the empirical instruments of science bring us no closer to a clear idea of happiness or how it is best achieved. While, psychologists measure subjective well-being, asking respondents how happy they feel, philosophers are more interested in the activity of being happy, in objective being: a state that we have no instruments to measure and no units to measure it in. In the absence of empirical study, philosophers have occupied themselves with this question, a question considered by some philosophers to be at the very heart of their quest for wisdom. Two questions occupied these minds: is happiness the supreme good? How is happiness best achieved? Immanuel Kant and Epicurus offer two alternate views of this, and, by rationally evaluating their views, it is possible to arrive at a more convincing evaluation of the part happiness has to play in human life.
A critical view of happiness’ role in life, antithetical to Aristotle’s belief, was explored by Immanuel Kant. Kant thought that pursuing happiness ought always to come second to acting morally. In his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, he argued that moral behaviour and hedonistic behaviour are often in opposition; and that we ought to take the moral path in such circumstances. It is because Kant didn’t consider happiness to be the supreme good that he thought we should not let its pursuit override moral decision making.
Kant’s conviction regarding happiness not being the supreme human good took the form of a modus tollens. If happiness were the supreme human good, he argued, humans would be better equipped for seeking it. Humans aren’t, therefore happiness mustn’t be the supreme human good. He pointed to inconsistencies in our nature that seem to prevent us from enjoying happiness as evidence of his claim. The fact that humans have a conscience suggested to him that we aren’t naturally inclined towards happiness, as our natural conscience makes us feel guilty when we do things that might otherwise make us feel only good. Also, the fact that humans weren’t instinctively guided towards happiness, that we had free will, and that it wasn’t always easy to divine the path towards happiness added to his argument. A being made for happiness, he thought, would not have to try to achieve it.
In terms of the proposed dichotomy between happiness and moral behaviour, Kant’s views are to some extent shared by John Stuart Mill. Mill, although he saw the promotion of happiness as utmost also said that sometimes lesser pleasures not fitting to a human must be ignored in preference of nobler pleasures that were worthy of a human. This point of view is famously remembered in the quotation, “It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”
While many philosophers have been ready to discredit the role of happiness in life, one classical philosopher emerges as a philosophical apologist for those who seek pleasure – Epicurus. Epicurus thought that happiness – the final, complete and supreme good – could not be conceived of without sensual pleasure: “Pleasure is the beginning and the goal of a happy life.” Epicurus thought that philosophy itself ought to be a means of achieving happiness.
Epicurus however, thought people behaved very confusedly when coming up with effective ways to lead happy lives. In order to avoid this and to rationally come to grips with what was necessary for a happy life, Epicurus used the Socratic Method. He would examine a statement such as ‘I need great wealth to be happy’ and suggest two counter-questions: ‘Can one have great wealth and be unhappy? Can one be happy and not have great wealth?’ By means of this method, Epicurus was able to arrive at a list of things required for a happy life. The first of these was friendship. With true friendship, Epicurus realised, came the respect and love that all people need and that money could never guarantee – in his own words, “Of all the things that wisdom provides to help one live one’s entire life in happiness, the greatest by far is the possession of friendship.” Epicurus also realised the importance of freedom, in allowing one to avoid the obligations and annoyances of employment and financial competition: “We must free ourselves from the prison of everyday affairs and politics.” To achieve this freedom, Epicurus and his followers entered into a simpler existence, detaching themselves from Athenian commercial life. The third ingredient of a happy life was thought. Through thought, one was able to deal with any anxieties. If the anxiety could not be directly dealt with, thought still allowed Epicurus’ friends to deal with the confusion and uncertainty related to many problems. Philosophical analysis was the key to their peaceful and happy lives.
We can thus see what would have been surprising to Epicurus’ contemporaries and belies the modern definition of the word ‘Epicure’: Epicurus had established a method of pursuing happiness independent of money or sensual excess. Other than one’s basic needs, all that was necessary for happiness were the pleasures of friendship, freedom, and thought. Once one had a level of money sufficient to secure food, shelter and clothing, no excess money was required to enjoy a pleasurable existence.
Given the contrast between Kant’s and Epicurus’ views, it would seem that some evaluation is required, and indeed, such evaluation sheds useful light on their philosophies. In regards to Kant’s emphasis on the need to choose between morality and happiness, this seems to be a false dilemma, as there may be alternatives. In fact, Guyer explains that while in Kant’s view morality is all-important, the object of morality is “the preservation of human beings as ends in themselves together with the promotion and fulfilment of their permissible ends.” Guyer goes on to explain that such respect for human beings is indeed necessary for human society, thus nature is, at the very least, compatible with the unified realisation of virtue and happiness. The sort of happiness of which Kant is so critical would be more clearly expressed as pleasure, “the aim of impulse” in George Santayana’s words, which is fleeting and insubstantial, compared to the lasting happiness, “the aim of reason” , described by Aristotle.
Kant’s conditional argument regarding happiness not being the supreme good, while valid, can be exposed as unsound: it is unclear how humans could be any better equipped for seeking happiness. Conscience and free will, essentials of human nature, are not in fact obstacles to happiness, but make its attainment possible. Animals, lacking these human faculties, can hardly be described as happy – a dog’s tail wagging is little more than an instinctive response to pleasurable stimulus. In contrast, human happiness arises out of the meaningful exercise of free will and a clear conscience. Thus, contrary to Kant’s argument, conscience and free will ultimately enable true human happiness, and are not obstacles to it.
Epicurus’ philosophical position, arrived at by the truth-seeking Socratic Method, is more resistant to refutation. We can study the validity of his conclusions by applying the Socratic Method to them: Can one not have friends and be happy? Can one be happy without freedom? Can one be happy without reflection? Ultimately the answers to these questions are based not in abstract argument but personal feeling, and personal feelings seem to support Epicurus’ conclusions by statistical induction– according to The Australia Institute, 65% of people consider either “Partner/spouse and family relationships” or “Community and friends” to be “the most important thing for…happiness”. Additionally, it is hard to picture a happy life that lacks friendship, freedom, and space for reflection. Epicurus’ potentially contradictory fondness for pleasure must be understood in this context, as he only considers it worthwhile as a means of arriving at more lasting happiness, not something to be pursued for itself.
Also philosophically sound about the sustainable lifestyle of content espoused by Epicurus is how it subverts Kant’s dilemma: Epicurus aims solely for happiness and, by doing so, avoids harming others and brings happiness his companions. If one self-interestedly develops friendship, freedom and thought, than the pursuit of happiness is beneficial to one and all.
From an examination of these two philosophies, it seems that they are not as opposed as a superficial consideration may have suggested. Both philosophers had a view of the supreme good, and they viewed happiness as either the supreme good itself, or an outcome synonymous with it. Both philosophers offered a view of what led to happy existence: Kant emphasised the path towards a happy society, Epicurus the path towards happy individuals. These two paths have been shown to be supportive of one another, it is thus possible to draw a synthesis from these viewpoints. Happiness is indeed the supreme human good. It consists not in the narrow-minded or immoral pursuit of pleasure, but in a rational, intelligent and reflective approach to relationships and life. This exists in necessary symbiosis with moral behaviour as respect for other humans who are also entitled to happiness. Indeed, it is hard for people to feel happy when they have been behaving wrongly, as they rightly have a sense of the harm they have caused others and feel sorry for that. For those seeking happiness, no action whose consequences are overwhelmingly harmful to others will bring that; for those seeking morality over happiness, they will soon find that such division is not necessary.
It is now worth returning to Mill’s famous line, “It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” Presumably, the reasoning behind this is that Socrates was doing valuable and necessary philosophical work such that, even if it didn’t make him happy, he was still better off than a satisfied fool. But implicit in Mill’s reasoning is the assumption that Socrates wouldn’t be satisfied by his work, that the ridicule and failure that beset him would have left him downhearted. On the contrary, Socrates, while he lamented the sad state into which Athens had fallen, delighted in his role, comparing himself to a gadfly prodding a lazy mule into motion. Even when sentenced to death for his work, Socrates accepted this conclusion and elected not to flee. Artistic depictions of his death by self-poisoning show him animated to the last, debating a point with a student even as he reaches for the fatal hemlock. Are these the actions of a dissatisfied man?
And what of the satisfied fool? This fool presumably lives a life that in no way realises the esteemed ideals of Socrates’ existence, instead opting for self-absorption, the neglect of friendships, freedom and thought in preference for the transient pleasures of luxury, power, or social acclaim. This fool’s satisfaction is ephemeral and insubstantial, based on the opinions of others or the fulfilment of others’ expectations. Having reached their desired position, they, like Macbeth, modern celebrities, or even schoolyard jocks will be beset with anxiety, having constantly to maintain an acceptable public image. Thus they cannot feel the security and self-confidence available to individuals such as Epicurus, whose happiness is contained within themselves.
In concluding then, it is not better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied, as a dissatisfied Socrates would certainly not be performing the valuable philosophy that have fixed him in history, and the fool’s satisfaction is ephemeral and beset by anxiety. Happiness consists in doing that which brings meaning to one’s life and the lives of others, in spending time with those who love and respect one, in thinking about possible causes of anxiety, and in being free from tedium. Indeed then, Mill may have more accurately said, it is better to be Socrates happy than a fool pleased.
Popularity: 26% [?]
