|
Quote of the
month:
"Always take the short cut; and that is the rational one.
Therefore say and do everything according to soundest reason." -
Marcus Aurelius, 121-180CE.
Further
readings:
The Nicomachean Ethics, by Aristotle, check
out what the Master said.
Web
links:
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on ethics.
 Massimo's Tales of the Rational: Essays About Nature and Science

Visit
Massimo's Skeptic & Humanist Web
|
Americans are reasonably
happy people. This is one of the findings of a recently published
survey of self-reported happiness worldwide (see Scientific American
November 2002). Interestingly, however, they are not the most happy
people on earth. That distinction goes to the populations of
northern Europe, despite the harsh winters and lack of sunshine. The
rest of Western Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand report
levels of happiness similar to that of the United States.
Intermediate happiness can be found in most Asian countries
(including China), while lower levels are typical of South American
countries, and lower still is the self-appraised happiness of most
Africans (though the absolute minimum is found in Russia and in some
of its former satellites).
Philosophers have discussed what makes humans happy or unhappy at
least since Aristotle wrote his Ethics, but it seems most obvious to
ask the people themselves (Aristotle was famous for not thinking of
such simple solutions to complex problems: he once claimed that
women have a different number of teeth than men, but it didn’t occur
to him to open Mrs. Aristotle’s mouth and count them!). As you might
imagine, financial security is crucial to happiness. Astoundingly,
however, the level of income above which more money doesn’t seem to
matter for most people is low: only about $13,000 / year, or circa
half of the median American income! Above that, more importance is
carried by factors like health, attitude, professional occupation,
and relationships (married or divorced people are happier than
single ones), which explains why people living in countries with
lower income but better social health indicators (such as
Scandinavian nations) report that they are significantly happier
than the highly capitalistic US.
Aristotle, however, seems to have gotten much right in his
analysis of happiness and how to achieve it. First off, he realized
that we are constantly trying to overcome an innate “weakness of the
will” (the Greek word is akrasia), a natural tendency we seem to
have to simply satisfy our basic instincts (food, sex, and power).
Modern biology gives us important clues as to where akrasia comes
from: for most of our evolutionary history, we lived in environments
in which it was difficult to procure food, hard to find a mate (and
especially to have offspring), and where getting to be the alpha
male was the best way to insure both. Natural selection has
therefore built into us powerful instincts that drive us to
constantly seek such things even today. The difference, of course,
is that, in our modern environment, food is usually plentiful (at
least in Western societies); you can find dates on the Internet or
scanning a newspaper, and neither of these requires you to be the
President of the United States to be successful.
Aristotle realized (and the modern survey confirms) that true
happiness—while requiring a certain amount of food, sex, and control
over one’s destiny—is a much more sophisticated affair than just
meeting the basic needs. That is why he attempted to explore how we
can reach the goal of “eudaimonia,” a word that, while normally
translated as “happiness,” in fact implies more than low-grade
contentment. Aristotle suggested that we need to cultivate virtue,
because virtue is like a good acquired habit: it requires constant
reinforcement to oppose our natural tendency to yield to akratic
temptations. So, for example, most of us feel a natural attraction
toward that double cheeseburger, because of its amount of fat and
proteins, both hard to find in our prehistoric environment. But our
rational self, knowing about cholesterol and heart attack, can make
a strong case that our eudaimonia would be increased by not walking
into a fast food place at all times of the day. Such case needs to
be made with ourselves every time we are faced with the same choice,
which is why keeping a reasonable diet is such an ordeal. According
to Aristotle, you also don’t want to go to the other extreme (sorry
for the vegetarians among you), and deprive yourself of life’s
pleasures altogether. That would be erring on the other side of his
famous golden mean: for every virtue there are two opposite vices,
though one may be more easily avoided than the other.
Aristotle’s system is often referred to as “virtue ethics,”
because it is based on a theory of what it means to be virtuous in
general, and does not provide specific suggestions or rules of
conduct for particular instances (unlike, say duty-based ethics, of
which most religious and some secular systems are examples). That is
why virtue ethics both appeal strongly to some people (historically,
especially the ancient Romans), and it is completely repulsive for
others (most religious fundamentalists, be they Jewish, Christians,
or Muslims). Virtue ethics is not about following somebody else’s
idea of what is right and wrong, it is about a continuous,
difficult, and uncertain process of self-discovery, during which one
slowly comes to terms with human nature and how it can be
ameliorated.
Regardless of your favored system of ethics, I find consolation
in Aristotle every time I concede a cheeseburger to my akrasia, and
I feel ecstatic when I manage to feed my eudaimonia with a healthy
portion of grilled fish. Our search for happiness continues, and I
suspect that its very pursuit has much to do with what it means to
be human. |