Their contribution to happiness is indirect, via the way they affect how we can engage in rational activity according to the relevant virtues. I will then object that this view threatens to make his overall account of happiness incoherent. Fortunately, there is a way to reconcile the apparent tensions, in book III. Any account of human happiness is subject to certain criteria to assess its satisfactoriness.
our mindset differs and individual differences have consequences on our perceptions of pleasure. There is no such thing as universal pleasure, what is pleasurable for me can be painful for you and vice versa, even in the narrow context of necessary pleasures. The same goes for the most valuable pleasures. One can argue that prudence will lead to the most valuable pleasure, but prudence is only a tool, a handy instrument that can help me to avoid the pain. My opinion is that Epicurus’ theory is based on the assumption that all people share the same or relatively similar personalities and that consequently react in a similar way to both internal and external stimuli.
The opposite is also true. A person can be having a bad day and something happens that instantly cheers them up. There are numerous theories on what actually makes people happy. In the article “The New Science of Happiness,” author Claudia Wallis states, “Our overall happiness is not merely the sum of our happy moments minus the sum of our angry or sad ones”(Wallis 3). The truth is that happiness is a complex emotion and is nearly impossible to measure by what happens in a person’s life.
To Schopenhauer, happiness cannot be understood if the elements of its ' absence are not understood. Many comprehend life to be a balancing act, that these elements equalize the fulfillment of want and desire with suffering and misfortune. The same individuals would then assume that life because it carries these harmonizing features, is positively good. Because many believe life is presented as "good", suffering bestows itself as an exception or aberration to the general rule of life whereas, Schopenhauer believes it to be the other way around. He believes that life is defined by pain, drudgery, calamity, desire and that the moments of pleasure and joy are the exception to life.
The greatest happiness principle says that actions are right in proportion that they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the opposite of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure. According to John Stuart Mill, pleasure can be measured along the following parameters: intensity, duration, certainty or uncertainty, propinquity or remoteness, fecundity, purity and extent. In contrast, rule-utilitarianism believes in an ideal code or set of rules. An act is wrong if and only if it is forbidden by the best set of rules whose internalization by the overwhelming majority of everyone everywhere in each new generation has maximum expected value in terms of well-being.
(1991) indicates that the balance between negative and positive feelings is a good indicator of happiness. This suggests the measurement of objective happiness by means of individual balance of positive and negative experiences. Other studies revealed that purely measuring positive emotions, strong implications could be made about the individual happiness level; they can be seen as markers and sources of happiness (Diener, 2005). This is the reason why Seligman only used positive emotions in the PERMA model. Having a valued and worth filling positive life also strongly depends on positive emotions, (Fredrickson, 2001) due to the high correlation of life satisfaction and SWB (Michalos, et al., 2009).
He does agree with virtues and vices, and believes that people act virtuously for their own benefit. Would agreeing to the benefits of virtues and vices, still play a role in the idea that there could be an afterlife? People act in ways to benefit their own agenda. Participating in virtuous actions allows for someone to gain a pleasant spot in the afterlife. People do not act good without knowing that there is some kind of benefit in it for them.
In American society today, there’s debates centered around how to be happy and to stay happy. There is generally lots of ways to stay happy and make you happy but sometimes those objects that make you happy are temporary happiness. As the prominent philosopher John Mill is that people shouldn’t be so focused on being happy, that shouldn't be your main purpose in life. Mill’s argument about happiness is correct in that we shouldn’t be focused on making others happy or the world a better place, try to be more focused on our own happiness. According to the article “The Madness of Materialism,” by Taylor who says that people today believe that the key to happiness is money or buying things for yourself.
What is Happiness? Technically speaking, happiness is a state of well being and contentment and is also known as a pleasurable experience but no one is positive of the true meaning of happiness.”What is happiness? More words have been written about this great philosophical question than any other than perhaps any other…. Science can illuminate components of happiness and and investigate empirically what builds those components”(Seligman 1380). These components are states as pleasure, engagement, and meaning.