His depiction of a feared ruler disregards the prosperity of his people and does not account for their pursuit of happiness. They must live in fear and refrain from angering their malicious prince. A ruler should not be concerned with his own prosperity, instead, he should seek to benefit his people. I believe Machiavelli’s opinion on how a prince should rule is evil, and I find no justification in his
Notably, Boethius does acknowledge that the quest for happiness is a natural habit for human beings, but people are simply trumped by false expectations of what happiness truly is . In Book 3 of his book “The Consolation of Philosophy,” he states that money and riches are poisonous and explicitly declares attributes that come along with them, such as honor and wealth, as harmful and inadequate to true happiness. To him, a person that does not have, is better off than a person that does. His logic follows the concept of attachment. Those who do not have money, are not attached to it, and those who have money will be overwhelmed with
Happiness doesn’t come from how much knowledge you have but instead comes from your heart when you help someone. There should not be an underlying motive for doing good. Russell connects love and happiness together when he explains that in the opinion of the traditional moralist, “love should be unselfish.” He disagrees with this statement and elaborates by illustrating a situation in which a man asks a woman to marry him. Through this, he portrays that we should try to make our loved ones happy, but it should not be a priority before our own happiness. People can be very selfish even when their initial intentions are good.
The Great Gatsby Essay F. Scott Fitzgerald was a famous author who wrote the book, The Great Gatsby. His purpose in writing this book was to show the differences between old and new money. Old money meaning people being born into wealthy lifestyles and new money meaning people who were not born with money but gained a lot of wealth. These were separated by two areas called west egg and east egg. This book gives sort of an exclusive look into the luxury and glamour that people think is the life of a person with a high amount of wealth.
My favorite scene from Voltaire’s Candide was that of Eldorado, a utopia set away from the world and the opposite of what Europe is. The scene itself is ironic in that Candide and Cacambo don’t want to remain in the perfect utopia that they stumbled upon because of their pride and their greed. It’s an interpretation of human nature that suggests someone from our society cannot be happy unless they are set apart, on top. They see and desire the opportunity the jewels and gold present to them by leaving the safe haven of Eldorado rather than staying and being equal with all the other residents. The concept of greed is easily pictured when Candide says, “If we stay on here, we’ll simply be the same as everyone else, whereasif we return to Europe
This relates to his argument about egoism because one would concentrate on being selfish and bettering one’s existence. Likewise, it attacks altruism once again by showing that concerning yourself with others is going to prevent you from achieving the level of life satisfaction that one wouldn’t mind
This discovery explains that “nothing in your own life plans or aspirations and accomplishments will alter a built in, hardwired capacity for contentment,” (Kingwell). Genetics determines a person’s ability to obtain certain levels of happiness despite their search for happiness. Although genetics are a limiting factor towards one’s contentment, even the geneticists do not have a definition of happiness. In the conclusion, Kingwell asserts that philosophical thinkers have some truth in their thinking that questioning the definition will lead to unhappiness and he also believes that the geneticists are only looking at the facts instead of introspectively “raising the deeper question of what they, or we, mean by happiness,” (Kingwell). This type of thinking, the kind that limits the human understanding of happiness, is the hurdle /limiting factor/ that puts a damper on finding the true definition.
When people are rich it doesn't necessarily mean that they are happy. They would be much happier if they sorround themselves with people who don't care about their titles or how rich they are. No one really wants to be around people who only care about their money and are phony. Money and material things don't make a person who they want to be, its the goodness in their hearts that make's them who they are. After all people think that money is so important but they can't take it to the grave with them.
S2 makes it a bit more complicated by giving an explicit reason, a reason that seems quite selfless. However, the prior context of this scenario states that using money for your own personal desires is inherently selfish. That negates all the wondrous memories built during the time of the cruise, all the incredible sights and marvels, and the general benevolence of your mindset in doing something incredibly kind for your family. Say, however, that you did not go on the cruise yourself and simply sent your family. This would then negate the selfishness, judging from the context of the question, because you are no longer part of the equation.
It can be seen that people tend to compare their own personal assets to public goods and value their own belongings more than public goods (Fioramonti 2014, Class Notes). This means there is no incentive to value public goods. This is a tragedy as the act lies in the unmerciful working of things because everyone is capable of changing the pattern but no one will (Stewart, 2013). Garrett Hardin identified Mutual Coercion as a possible solution to the tragedy of the commons. This requires a society to agree to change their values of morality mutually and decide that deviations from this agreement be punished in some or other way.