NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Does full filling desires lead to happiness? In this paper I will try to determine whether or not the accumulation of material things or full filling desires can lead to a happy life. Also I will try not only to explain my own point of view on this subject but also will use famous works on human ethics. The definition of ethic seems somewhat blurry to me but studying this subject helps me to understand human nature better.
It also helps to inderstand the nature of human deeds better. Some people find my interest in human nature rather weird but it doesnt bother me. The main concept of ethic is tightly connected with living surrounding. Happiness is one of that ephemeral concepts on which ethic is trying to give clear answer.
Every person has his own idea of Happiness. And every person has his own path for achieving the final goal or the true and unleashed happiness. It may be lots of gold or fame, or nice home and kids. That is why it is not that easy to say whether or not the accumulation of material things or full filling desires can lead to a happy life. There must be one final end of all human actions, because a human action by definition is one that is done on purpose and for a definite goal. (Aristotle's Ethic) That is why I want to start this paper from Aristotle and his path to happy life. Aristotle ethic states that somewhere exist a complete and self- sufficient ultimate good and that this good is happiness itself.
So according to Aristotle the happy life is a good life and happiness is rather good itself. But there are other goods too such as as health and wealth, knowledge and friendship, and a good moral character. Such things are also god for us and we want them. Aristotle state that all men agree in speaking of happiness as the ultimate good, the highest good, the supreme good. In other words happiness is the state of human well-being which leaves nothing more to be desired. Still we cannot answer on the question about full filing of desires.
Of course Aristotle thought that a man who has everything he really wants is a truly happy man. But it is not in the way we understand it. Philosophers from Ancient Greece had very specific ideology. Today we may find many their ideas Utopian and naive.
Nevertheless theyve created a good basis for future since. So when Aristotle states in his Nicomachean Ethics happy man is the man who has everything he really means that he has those things which he needs to realize his potentials. And that is why he wants nothing. According to Mortimer J. Adler, Ph. D.
Thus a man might have health, but not sufficient wealth. Or, he may have both wealth and health -- but he may lack friends. Another man may have great knowledge -- but still lack other human perfections. (Aristotle's Ethic) But one cannot obtain all goods at once. Always there would be something missing. A man possesses one or more of the things which his nature craves, he may lack others, and then he cannot be considered happy. There would be some real goods missing which he should desire and try to obtain. (Mortimer J.
Adler, Ph. D, Aristotle's Ethic) Aristotle's happy life includes all good thing in it. Health wealth, friendship, knowledge, virtue are an undeniable parts of happiness. If your life contain all this goods you are a perfectly happy person.
And on other hand if full filling of your desires presume obtaining of all goods then they will lead to happiness. It is a pretty logical conclusion after considering Nicomachean Ethics but it is not where I want to stop. If for a one single moment we will try to analyze our deeds (no matter how unbelievable it seems) we will see that all of them were dedicated on the achieving happiness. We may have some other motivations but subconsciously all of us are craving for real happiness. Happiness is desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else. But honor, pleasure, reason, and every virtue we choose indeed for themselves, but we choose them also for the sake of happiness, judging that by means of them we shall be happy.
Happiness, on the other hand, no one chooses for the sake of these, nor, in general, for anything other than itself. Happiness, then, is something final and self-sufficient. (Mortimer J. Adler, Ph. D, Aristotle's Ethic) After careful observing of Nicomachean Ethics I may state that Aristotle was convinced that finding a real happiness is worth of lifetime. Maybe this is the path we must take in our life. But I have my doubts on it because there are goals which we may consider of worth achieving and in truth it is a self-delusion.
Aristotle tells that good moral character complet virtue is an important factor in achieving happiness. He is happy who lives in accordance with complete virtue and is sufficiently equipped with external goods, not for some chance period but throughout a complete life. (Nicomachean Ethics) I understand this statement in such way that everyday we must choose between that and this. All our life consists of choices and decisions. Some time ago I even thought that if all our life depends on our decisions and choices does it mean that we are in control of our lives? Later of course I leave such thoughts to rest in peace because they are not even worth of considering. Because there are something else in our lives within choices and decisions occasion or incident which can turn everything upside down.
But as for the Aristotles virtue it is very understandable. He teaches us to choose greater good insight of the moment pleasure. Even if the path to greater good include pain and suffering. "Now if the function of man is an activity of the soul which follows or implies a rational principle, ... human good turns out to be activity of soul in accordance with virtue, and if there is more than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most complete. " (Nicomachean Ethics, Book I) At this point I agree with Aristotle's completely (no matter how it sounds) maybe our worl's would be better if everyone chose the greater good but it so unbelievable.
Especially for modern people. We get used to the world we live in, we get used to choose what is better for us in that particular moment. And do think about others while making our decisions? No. Aristotle's states It is difficult for one to be guided rightly towards virtue from an early age unless he is brought up under such [i.
e. , right] laws; for a life of temperance and endurance is not pleasant to most people, especially the young. For these reasons, the nurture and pursuits of the young should be regulated by laws, for when they become habitual they are not painful" (Nicomachean Ethics, Book I). As Ive mentioned early it is hard ti define single conception of happiness because each man has his own conception. Aristotle has truly philosophical answer for that. He tells that happiness when it is achieved is one for all.
So according to Aristotle we must seek for happiness and achieve it through the obtaining of goods. This path may not be the easiest one but in the end we will good true happiness, one for all. On the other hand in Kant's ethics the main idea is that happiness is not not a morally worthy pursuit. Lets observe this closer Kant and his moral law. Kant define happiness as getting what ones want. In spite of Aristotle and his virtue discussions, Kant doesnt emphasize on the happiness in his works beacuse it is not the basis of his system of ethics.
His ethics contain happiness he doesnt make it the main idea of morality. According to The Moral Worth of Happiness Only actions which spring from respect for the moral law possess moral value. However, the idea that personal happiness is not a valid moral end is a presumption in ethics, not a foregone conclusion -- and a presumption needing just as much (if not more) justification as the Aristotelian notion of personal happiness as the final end. If we consider the utilitarian definition of happiness pleasure without pain, we can notice that Kant's ideas are very close. According to Kant, happiness is continuous well-being, enjoyment of life, complete satisfaction with ones condition. (Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant: Practical Philosophy) In other words for Kant happiness is complete satisfaction of all ones needs and inclinations.
If we take Kant's position than with all responsibility I can say that the accumulation of material things or full filling desires can lead to a happy life. But, there is a really huge but and before we will state something lets examine Kant's Weltanschauung more carefully. Happiness is not pleasure. It is not the virtuous, joyful feeling associated with living a moral life. Happiness is simply getting what you want. (The Role of Happiness in Kant's Ethics) From the very definition of Kant's happiness...
Free research essays on topics related to: personal happiness, moral character, happy life, nicomachean ethics, material things
Research essay sample on Does Desires Lead To Happiness Part 1
