The Happiness of Free People, Reprise
First, let us define "happiness" after the manner of Aristotle, as equivalent to good fortune. I am happy if I have adequate resources to live on, and unhappy if not. I am happy if I am able to pursue my desired goals, and unhappy if not. I am happy if I am able to accomplish those things which I wish to accomplish, and which contribute to my reputation in the community, and unhappy if I am unable to do so. This definition does not, as you might think, exclude one's personal feelings about one's happiness, but, rather, subsumes the personal feelings under the realm of the reputation. That is, if your community would judge you to be happy, as a reasonable member of that community, you must also judge yourself a happy man. (Or woman.)
Some of you will have noted that I am assuming that we are dealing with a shame society, rather than a society which runs on guilt. In such a society, honor is more important than any inner-directed sense of accomplishment or failure. In fact, in a shame society, to judge oneself differently than one would be judged by the community is a form of insanity.
Second, let us define a free people as one in which two sources of constraints are somewhat limited. First, the community as a whole is not under the sovereignty of another, alien community. Second, the government of the society is not autocratic or dictatorial, but constitutionally limited. All that is not prohibited is allowed, and relatively few things are either prohibited or mandatory. (Let us note, along the lines of Mill's On Liberty, that in a shame society, the force of social disapproval may be more restrictive than any government sanctions.)
These are definitions merely, and give us little of substance and circumstance. So, let us take the following premises as germane to the question:
1) One should always act so as to optimize one's wealth, security, and reputation.
2) A free society is one which places the fewest limits on one's ability to act as one wishes.
That would, I think, point to this conclusion:
A free society offers the best opportunity for happiness.
However, there is, I think, another implication, applicable to any society:
If one attempts to optimize one's wealth, security, and reputation by acting contrary to any of the prohibitions established by society (through law or other means), one is bound to fail, because such attempts are, by their nature, disreputable. That is, it is a contradiction to try to improve one's reputation by acting in a manner contrary to society's standards.
This leads me to suggest that, in any society, happiness is only achievable through submission to the rules of that society, and not achievable by defiance of them.
Some of you will have noted that I am assuming that we are dealing with a shame society, rather than a society which runs on guilt. In such a society, honor is more important than any inner-directed sense of accomplishment or failure. In fact, in a shame society, to judge oneself differently than one would be judged by the community is a form of insanity.
Second, let us define a free people as one in which two sources of constraints are somewhat limited. First, the community as a whole is not under the sovereignty of another, alien community. Second, the government of the society is not autocratic or dictatorial, but constitutionally limited. All that is not prohibited is allowed, and relatively few things are either prohibited or mandatory. (Let us note, along the lines of Mill's On Liberty, that in a shame society, the force of social disapproval may be more restrictive than any government sanctions.)
These are definitions merely, and give us little of substance and circumstance. So, let us take the following premises as germane to the question:
1) One should always act so as to optimize one's wealth, security, and reputation.
2) A free society is one which places the fewest limits on one's ability to act as one wishes.
That would, I think, point to this conclusion:
A free society offers the best opportunity for happiness.
However, there is, I think, another implication, applicable to any society:
If one attempts to optimize one's wealth, security, and reputation by acting contrary to any of the prohibitions established by society (through law or other means), one is bound to fail, because such attempts are, by their nature, disreputable. That is, it is a contradiction to try to improve one's reputation by acting in a manner contrary to society's standards.
This leads me to suggest that, in any society, happiness is only achievable through submission to the rules of that society, and not achievable by defiance of them.
posted by Glenn Knight at 10:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home