"Happiness is nature's way of saying we are doing the right thing"
When Mr. Romano said this I wasn't sure if he was quoting Ben B. or if he was saying this himself. Either way I found it interesting.
So... Is this true? Does this mean that the feeling that we experience when we are happy is something biological programmed in us so that nature can tell us if we are doing what we are supposed to?
My answer to this is yes and no. Biologically chemicals are released when we are doing something good like taking part in a community or being intimate with someone, a "mate" so too speak. This is good according to nature because it means you are doing the things needed to stay alive and pass on your genes. In this way I do think that happiness in part is a way for nature to tell us we are doing good.
For the rest of happiness, the parts of it that are founded outside of biology (I don't think happiness can be explained away with chemicals and transmitters)I don't think that nature has much to do with it. Morals aren't really natural. Animals don't worry about who or what they kill in order for them or their young to eat. People are different we have moral codes and things like integrity and justice. This characteristic of our species developed not from nature but from things like reason and later from religion and society in general. Doing the right thing is another way to happiness but it is not necessarily natures way of telling us we are doing good. With the story of the president he saved the pig and instead of being disgusted with himself for leaving it to die he was pleases. That wasn't because of nature it was because of the things he believed in, his morals. Nature would have told him to go and kill the pig to eat it later. In conclusion I answer my question with: sorta. There's a middle ground to everything and this is no exception.
"Once your salary meets your basic needs, according to society and culture, a higher salary will not increase your subjective well-being."
This statement really interested me, largely due to the qualification it makes in the middle. Your salary qualifies as 'meeting your basic needs' in a very subjective way. Rather than say, every person needs x amount of water, x amount of food, and an x-sized house, this theory says that everyone's basic needs are different. If they're basic needs for a human being, shouldn't they be the same? So I thought it was interesting that this theory does leave room for the influences of a person's surroundings and culture and society.
I am stunningly passionate about food. I can say with confidence, the higher quality my food is, the more satisfied I am. I am satisfied enough, I will spend hours reflecting on just how freakin awesome that food was in fact. Food, beyond basic needs makes me VERY VERY happy
This was one of the big questions Mr. Romano was trying to tackle today in his lecture. He talked about how research from different sources has produced different results. On one side, Easterlin's data showed that once you meet basic needs such as food and shelter, money has no real effect on overall happiness. Recent data suggests that money can affect one's happiness, however it just gets harder the more money you make. The more money you make, the less value it has to you, therefore it takes more of it to make you happy.
Like seemingly everything in this course, I don't fully agree with either position but I agree with aspects of both. Obviously I agree that people whose basic needs are fulfilled are happier than people who don't have food or shelter. But I would venture to say that people who also have savings in the bank and life insurance are more happier than the people who can only supply their own basic needs, without planning for the future. To me this comes from a sense of security. If you are living paycheck to paycheck (even if your basic needs are met), I am sure it is still stressful. My dad said the moment he started feeling content (financially), was when he knew that if he lost his job, got sick, or even died our family would have plenty of money in bank to continue to live our lives without frantically trying to get jobs to pay for things. I think this sense of financial security is the second level of happiness that can come from money after basic needs have been met.
I completely agree with this Joey. I don't think that just because your basic needs are met, that you are the happiest you will ever be in relation to the money you earn. I definitely think that there is a second threshold of financial security that would make a person even happier to reach.
However, another thing that I think is equally important is the set of values that a person has in relation to money. I could see how there are some people who could literally burn money because another few thousand dollars literally mean nothing to them. However, if you are this wealthy, I do think that you can reach this level of the 'meaningful life' that Mr. Romano applied to Bill Gates. If you are wealthy enough that you could burn money if you wanted to and not have it matter, I think you are definitely at the stage where you could use that money for a higher good. However, for most other people, I'd say that every dollar does count. Like you said with your dad, that money saved up in the bank could be useful at some point- and I think most people have this mentality. Those extra couple of paychecks DO mean something-- they are something that could bring you happiness in the future, and you should be happy that you earned them.
I thought the data concerning happiness and income was interesting. I completely agree that most people's happiness is relative to those around them, and that they would rather have a higher salary compared to everyone else than one lower than everyone else but still higher than theirs in the first case. I agree more with the recent data that higher incomes result in higher levels of happiness, only that the relationship is logarithmic, with increased happiness harder and harder to come by as income increases. This makes complete sense from an economic view, that there are diminishing returns of happiness. I believe this is true in reality also. If you offered $1,000 to a man who makes an annual salary of $40,000, his happiness will be increased. Now, if you offered that same $1,000 to someone who makes $200,000 every year, they wouldn't turn down the money because they believe it will make them unhappy. They will also gain happiness just like the first man, only not as much. So I believe that in certain ways, money can buy happiness.
I agree with everyone here. I think that money can still greatly impact happiness even after the bare needs are met. For instance my grandmother and grandfather had the bare necessities: food shelter water and the money to keep that. After years of savings (they were farmers so it took awhile) my grandmother was finally able to afford a clothes washer. My dad always tells the story about how proud of it she was and how she was happier because she had it. I think that this shows how money can help contribute to happiness past the point of the bare necessities but after things are made a little more comfortable I think that the money doesn't contribute to happiness as much. I think that after a point money is something that people get accostened to and it becomes less of a factor in happiness.
Does happiness really have a connection with money to a certain point and then past that point barely a connection at all?
In a materialistic society like todays money does seem like the answer to our happiness. I don't believe that though because I think everyone strives to make more money. We mentioned this a little in class how even when making $1 million if everyone else is making more this person is still going to want to make more. I think this search for more money works about the same as the search for happiness. If you keep trying to find it it's going to take up your time and really lead to less happiness. The basic needs met makes sense but determining what the "basic needs" is seems a little different to me. I know people who make under the amount we talked about in class and they are just fine. I don't know if money really has as big of an influence on our lives because I know plenty of people who have less but are happier. I also know people with more who are happy as well and I think it really just depends on the person. I don't know if money is a huge factor but maybe it could just be more money more problems.
This post made me think of something Mr. Romano has said in class before. He asked us if credit cards were bad. Some people said yes, and others said no. Then he said that a credit card is not bad or good. It is completely neutral. People are the ones that make it bad. I think that applies here as well, money is neither good nor bad, which means we can make it out to either help us or hurt us-- it all comes down to who you are as a person. Money is 'bad' if it turns you into a materialistic person who has so much money that you cannot realize the true value of money. Money is good if you can truly appreciate every dollar and see how it can help you and help others.
I want to build on Andrea's point, "Money is good if you can truly appreciate every dollar and see how it can help you and help others." I feel that is the reason that simply making more money wont make you any happier because after a certain extent its not how much you make, but what you do with it.
I agree with Andrea and Mr. Romano that money is a neutral thing. People associate money with many things, such as greed, or happiness in some cases. In general, I think most people would be pretty happy if you gave them a million dollars. The type of person you offer this, though, will determine whether this happiness lasts. If you want this money to make you happy, it's probably not a great idea to spend it all at once on meaningless items. Rather, you should spend some of it on things that matter to you, and save the rest, perhaps invest it. Those that are truly responsible with their money will be happier later in life. We hear all the time about professional athletes going bankrupt, when they were making millions only years earlier. Their lives are filled with large swings in fortune, and I believe this is not healthy. If a normal person is responsible with money, they will save up large amounts over time. This can lead to a happy and peaceful retirement, with very limited worries about money.
Does happiness level out after a while and is that really where you begin your meaningful life? I would say to an extent this is true, but all of your life can be meaningful if you learn to appreciate it. I think that there is a point where your life moves to be helping yourself and to helping the world around you and I think that is when you enter the meaningful life
This is beautiful in that it is so simple.Like Mr. Heintz said, making a list of the things that you are most thankful for will make you appreciate what you have and it is at that point the want and need to have more will disappear.
"More money more Problems" -Notroious B.I.G This quote, while simple, is surprisingly complex. Keeping on the same Hip-Hop path the idea of the Easterlin Paradox is extremely prevelant. Once rappers appear to have reached their mainstream level of superstardom they all ironically rap more and more about the change in thier motivation. "Back in the days, back in the days I sold crack for a few days and then quit after I got paid. I aint lazy I just knew that there was more to be made", Lil Wayne. In this quote Lil Wayne, well famous by now, is reflecting on his life and the moment in which he truly began pursuing rap as a profession. He felt that rap was a legal method at which he could pursue his dream of making money without being threatened by laws are street violence. Ironically, Lil Wayne would later go to prison on gun possession charges. Similarly to Atlanta rapper T.I who would also go to prison on gun possesion charges after a couple years back he quit selling drugs, a life that one would assume would require someone to carry firearms. Even looking at B.I.G and Tupac, another notrious rapper whose name is commonly associated with Biggie, both pursued a rap career and left a life of crime, made millions and as they climbed higher and higher they lived under more and more stress and both were assainated.
The rap world is only a small scale that proves the Easterlin Paradox, or B.I.G's quote, correct. Statistics show that Lawyers and Dentist are two professions that have the most suicides. Unfortunately, in the American society no one can gauge when they should settle at a stage in thier life where enough is enough and they no longer need to strive for more money. My father constantly works overtime in hopes of earning more money but ironcially the more income he earns he can even acknnolwedge that he is not working his way towards more happiness but instead more stress. Why is our society developed in which we are made to pursure more money even knowing that it will not lead to happiness?
We are wired for comparative action. We will always want to run faster, have more money and be smarter then everyone else. This is why we continue on that path.
"Bhutan's audacious solution is to build its society from the ground up using what it calls the "four pillars" of GNH: sustainable economic development, conservation of the environment, preservation of culture and good governance."
Is Bhutan's idea of GNH legitamite in the way it could make its population generally happier?
I think that if people's basic needs are met then that is a certain level of national happiness in itself. Bhutan is trying to continue growth while maintaining the ideas and values that it holds dear. I believe that by doing this the country would be able to set a baseline for happiness for their people, but only if all these qualifications are met.
The GNH is not supposed to make the population happier; instead it is supposed to see how happy they are, so they can decide if they can do anything about it. I feel that what Bhutan is doing is a waste of time and government resources. It costs the US government $47 dollars per person to conduct a census, and it probably cost Bhutan much more because of the limited computer access. I feel that their resources could be placed to better use.
I disagree with you Kent. I don't think it is a waste of time to measure happiness if they have found a legitimate way to measure it. If they find what is important and what contributes to a person's happiness and decided to add to that it can only benefit the population of Bhutan.
I actually feel I am on middle ground. I agree with Kent that the money could be put to better use and with Jensen that if they can measure it why not. I think that measuring happiness can be both detrimental and beneficial to the population. If you do not have the necessary things according to the questionnaire to make you happy does that mean you cannot be happy in that country??
Jensen, but is it really a legitimate way to measure someone's happiness? For example, they measure an individual's "Socio-cultural participation" but does that mean that people who like to be by themselves are unhappy? Another is DriglamNamzha (the Way of Harmony)" which is the is expected behavior (of consuming, clothing, moving). If a person is outside the norm, does that make them unhappy and need to be fix? This type of thinking is very similar to the thinking behind the "White Man's Burden" of the American and Europeans. http://www.grossnationalhappiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Short-GNH-Index-edited.pdf
"Those only are happy...who have their minds fixed on some object other than their own happiness. Aiming thus at something else, they find happiness along the way" John Stuart Mill (Nettle, 155).
Is not trying to make yourself happy, the key to happiness?
Throughout the term, many philosophers have touched on this idea, but did not give it another thought because "it cant be that simple." Pop culture reference, In How I Met Your Mother, one of the characters,Robin, swears off dating and says she is not looking to get married, and as soon as she stops looking to date/get married. Not long after she makes this proclamation, she gets married. I think what Mill said ties into the view of previous philosophers that you should do the right thing for the right reasons and everything will work out.
When Mr. Heintz asked us whether the Easterlin paradox was a justification for taxation, much of our class brought up political arguments that supported their ideas of taxation. While that is all good and fine, the real question has nothing to do with political issues. It is whether the Easterlin paradox makes sense. given the conclusion that income beyond meeting basic needs will not increase happiness, the Easterlin paradox does indeed make sense.
I can honestly say, having the money to indulge my passions for food, literature, and cinema in ways that I have liked to has made me at the very least, more satisfied with my life. When I was somewhat younger, I certainly was always wanting more, which in a sense, could be defined as "unhappiness," but frankly, as of late, I have developed an enormous satisfaction with the things I have above the bare necessities. My dog is not a "bare neccesity," I would even argue she is a luxury, yet she gives me meaning in my life and more satisfaction than almost anything I can imagine. I enjoy being able to see films on a regular basis. The analysis I can do based on them provides me with far more than a short-term satisfaction. I have been pondering certain David Lynch works and the ending of Carpenter's The Thing for YEARS. I enjoy that. Film is an important way I find meaning, and with only the barest amount of money, I would not be able to indulge my passion for it.
I agree we have talked about this throughout the whole term. That when you look for your own happiness so hard you miss it. When you give yourself the chance to find something for someone you can stumble upon the object that will bring you happiness.
"Happiness is nature's way of saying we are doing the right thing"
ReplyDeleteWhen Mr. Romano said this I wasn't sure if he was quoting Ben B. or if he was saying this himself. Either way I found it interesting.
So... Is this true? Does this mean that the feeling that we experience when we are happy is something biological programmed in us so that nature can tell us if we are doing what we are supposed to?
My answer to this is yes and no. Biologically chemicals are released when we are doing something good like taking part in a community or being intimate with someone, a "mate" so too speak. This is good according to nature because it means you are doing the things needed to stay alive and pass on your genes. In this way I do think that happiness in part is a way for nature to tell us we are doing good.
For the rest of happiness, the parts of it that are founded outside of biology (I don't think happiness can be explained away with chemicals and transmitters)I don't think that nature has much to do with it. Morals aren't really natural. Animals don't worry about who or what they kill in order for them or their young to eat. People are different we have moral codes and things like integrity and justice. This characteristic of our species developed not from nature but from things like reason and later from religion and society in general. Doing the right thing is another way to happiness but it is not necessarily natures way of telling us we are doing good. With the story of the president he saved the pig and instead of being disgusted with himself for leaving it to die he was pleases. That wasn't because of nature it was because of the things he believed in, his morals. Nature would have told him to go and kill the pig to eat it later. In conclusion I answer my question with: sorta. There's a middle ground to everything and this is no exception.
"Once your salary meets your basic needs, according to society and culture, a higher salary will not increase your subjective well-being."
ReplyDeleteThis statement really interested me, largely due to the qualification it makes in the middle. Your salary qualifies as 'meeting your basic needs' in a very subjective way. Rather than say, every person needs x amount of water, x amount of food, and an x-sized house, this theory says that everyone's basic needs are different. If they're basic needs for a human being, shouldn't they be the same? So I thought it was interesting that this theory does leave room for the influences of a person's surroundings and culture and society.
I am stunningly passionate about food. I can say with confidence, the higher quality my food is, the more satisfied I am. I am satisfied enough, I will spend hours reflecting on just how freakin awesome that food was in fact. Food, beyond basic needs makes me VERY VERY happy
DeleteMr. Romano did say something about the basic needs being influenced by surroundings. He said that there is a weight in relative and objective wealth.
Delete"Can money buy happiness?"
ReplyDeleteThis was one of the big questions Mr. Romano was trying to tackle today in his lecture. He talked about how research from different sources has produced different results. On one side, Easterlin's data showed that once you meet basic needs such as food and shelter, money has no real effect on overall happiness. Recent data suggests that money can affect one's happiness, however it just gets harder the more money you make. The more money you make, the less value it has to you, therefore it takes more of it to make you happy.
Like seemingly everything in this course, I don't fully agree with either position but I agree with aspects of both. Obviously I agree that people whose basic needs are fulfilled are happier than people who don't have food or shelter. But I would venture to say that people who also have savings in the bank and life insurance are more happier than the people who can only supply their own basic needs, without planning for the future. To me this comes from a sense of security. If you are living paycheck to paycheck (even if your basic needs are met), I am sure it is still stressful. My dad said the moment he started feeling content (financially), was when he knew that if he lost his job, got sick, or even died our family would have plenty of money in bank to continue to live our lives without frantically trying to get jobs to pay for things. I think this sense of financial security is the second level of happiness that can come from money after basic needs have been met.
I completely agree with this Joey. I don't think that just because your basic needs are met, that you are the happiest you will ever be in relation to the money you earn. I definitely think that there is a second threshold of financial security that would make a person even happier to reach.
DeleteHowever, another thing that I think is equally important is the set of values that a person has in relation to money. I could see how there are some people who could literally burn money because another few thousand dollars literally mean nothing to them. However, if you are this wealthy, I do think that you can reach this level of the 'meaningful life' that Mr. Romano applied to Bill Gates. If you are wealthy enough that you could burn money if you wanted to and not have it matter, I think you are definitely at the stage where you could use that money for a higher good. However, for most other people, I'd say that every dollar does count. Like you said with your dad, that money saved up in the bank could be useful at some point- and I think most people have this mentality. Those extra couple of paychecks DO mean something-- they are something that could bring you happiness in the future, and you should be happy that you earned them.
I thought the data concerning happiness and income was interesting. I completely agree that most people's happiness is relative to those around them, and that they would rather have a higher salary compared to everyone else than one lower than everyone else but still higher than theirs in the first case. I agree more with the recent data that higher incomes result in higher levels of happiness, only that the relationship is logarithmic, with increased happiness harder and harder to come by as income increases. This makes complete sense from an economic view, that there are diminishing returns of happiness. I believe this is true in reality also. If you offered $1,000 to a man who makes an annual salary of $40,000, his happiness will be increased. Now, if you offered that same $1,000 to someone who makes $200,000 every year, they wouldn't turn down the money because they believe it will make them unhappy. They will also gain happiness just like the first man, only not as much. So I believe that in certain ways, money can buy happiness.
DeleteI agree with everyone here. I think that money can still greatly impact happiness even after the bare needs are met. For instance my grandmother and grandfather had the bare necessities: food shelter water and the money to keep that. After years of savings (they were farmers so it took awhile) my grandmother was finally able to afford a clothes washer. My dad always tells the story about how proud of it she was and how she was happier because she had it. I think that this shows how money can help contribute to happiness past the point of the bare necessities but after things are made a little more comfortable I think that the money doesn't contribute to happiness as much. I think that after a point money is something that people get accostened to and it becomes less of a factor in happiness.
DeleteDoes happiness really have a connection with money to a certain point and then past that point barely a connection at all?
ReplyDeleteIn a materialistic society like todays money does seem like the answer to our happiness. I don't believe that though because I think everyone strives to make more money. We mentioned this a little in class how even when making $1 million if everyone else is making more this person is still going to want to make more. I think this search for more money works about the same as the search for happiness. If you keep trying to find it it's going to take up your time and really lead to less happiness. The basic needs met makes sense but determining what the "basic needs" is seems a little different to me. I know people who make under the amount we talked about in class and they are just fine. I don't know if money really has as big of an influence on our lives because I know plenty of people who have less but are happier. I also know people with more who are happy as well and I think it really just depends on the person. I don't know if money is a huge factor but maybe it could just be more money more problems.
This post made me think of something Mr. Romano has said in class before. He asked us if credit cards were bad. Some people said yes, and others said no. Then he said that a credit card is not bad or good. It is completely neutral. People are the ones that make it bad. I think that applies here as well, money is neither good nor bad, which means we can make it out to either help us or hurt us-- it all comes down to who you are as a person. Money is 'bad' if it turns you into a materialistic person who has so much money that you cannot realize the true value of money. Money is good if you can truly appreciate every dollar and see how it can help you and help others.
DeleteI want to build on Andrea's point, "Money is good if you can truly appreciate every dollar and see how it can help you and help others." I feel that is the reason that simply making more money wont make you any happier because after a certain extent its not how much you make, but what you do with it.
DeleteI agree with Andrea and Mr. Romano that money is a neutral thing. People associate money with many things, such as greed, or happiness in some cases. In general, I think most people would be pretty happy if you gave them a million dollars. The type of person you offer this, though, will determine whether this happiness lasts. If you want this money to make you happy, it's probably not a great idea to spend it all at once on meaningless items. Rather, you should spend some of it on things that matter to you, and save the rest, perhaps invest it. Those that are truly responsible with their money will be happier later in life. We hear all the time about professional athletes going bankrupt, when they were making millions only years earlier. Their lives are filled with large swings in fortune, and I believe this is not healthy. If a normal person is responsible with money, they will save up large amounts over time. This can lead to a happy and peaceful retirement, with very limited worries about money.
DeleteDoes happiness level out after a while and is that really where you begin your meaningful life?
ReplyDeleteI would say to an extent this is true, but all of your life can be meaningful if you learn to appreciate it. I think that there is a point where your life moves to be helping yourself and to helping the world around you and I think that is when you enter the meaningful life
This is beautiful in that it is so simple.Like Mr. Heintz said, making a list of the things that you are most thankful for will make you appreciate what you have and it is at that point the want and need to have more will disappear.
Delete"More money more Problems" -Notroious B.I.G
ReplyDeleteThis quote, while simple, is surprisingly complex. Keeping on the same Hip-Hop path the idea of the Easterlin Paradox is extremely prevelant. Once rappers appear to have reached their mainstream level of superstardom they all ironically rap more and more about the change in thier motivation. "Back in the days, back in the days I sold crack for a few days and then quit after I got paid. I aint lazy I just knew that there was more to be made", Lil Wayne. In this quote Lil Wayne, well famous by now, is reflecting on his life and the moment in which he truly began pursuing rap as a profession. He felt that rap was a legal method at which he could pursue his dream of making money without being threatened by laws are street violence. Ironically, Lil Wayne would later go to prison on gun possession charges. Similarly to Atlanta rapper T.I who would also go to prison on gun possesion charges after a couple years back he quit selling drugs, a life that one would assume would require someone to carry firearms. Even looking at B.I.G and Tupac, another notrious rapper whose name is commonly associated with Biggie, both pursued a rap career and left a life of crime, made millions and as they climbed higher and higher they lived under more and more stress and both were assainated.
The rap world is only a small scale that proves the Easterlin Paradox, or B.I.G's quote, correct. Statistics show that Lawyers and Dentist are two professions that have the most suicides. Unfortunately, in the American society no one can gauge when they should settle at a stage in thier life where enough is enough and they no longer need to strive for more money. My father constantly works overtime in hopes of earning more money but ironcially the more income he earns he can even acknnolwedge that he is not working his way towards more happiness but instead more stress. Why is our society developed in which we are made to pursure more money even knowing that it will not lead to happiness?
We are wired for comparative action. We will always want to run faster, have more money and be smarter then everyone else. This is why we continue on that path.
Delete"Bhutan's audacious solution is to build its society from the ground up using what it calls the "four pillars" of GNH: sustainable economic development, conservation of the environment, preservation of culture and good governance."
ReplyDeleteIs Bhutan's idea of GNH legitamite in the way it could make its population generally happier?
I think that if people's basic needs are met then that is a certain level of national happiness in itself. Bhutan is trying to continue growth while maintaining the ideas and values that it holds dear. I believe that by doing this the country would be able to set a baseline for happiness for their people, but only if all these qualifications are met.
The GNH is not supposed to make the population happier; instead it is supposed to see how happy they are, so they can decide if they can do anything about it. I feel that what Bhutan is doing is a waste of time and government resources. It costs the US government $47 dollars per person to conduct a census, and it probably cost Bhutan much more because of the limited computer access. I feel that their resources could be placed to better use.
DeleteI disagree with you Kent. I don't think it is a waste of time to measure happiness if they have found a legitimate way to measure it. If they find what is important and what contributes to a person's happiness and decided to add to that it can only benefit the population of Bhutan.
DeleteI actually feel I am on middle ground. I agree with Kent that the money could be put to better use and with Jensen that if they can measure it why not. I think that measuring happiness can be both detrimental and beneficial to the population. If you do not have the necessary things according to the questionnaire to make you happy does that mean you cannot be happy in that country??
DeleteJensen, but is it really a legitimate way to measure someone's happiness? For example, they measure an individual's "Socio-cultural participation" but does that mean that people who like to be by themselves are unhappy? Another is DriglamNamzha (the Way of Harmony)" which is the is expected behavior (of
Deleteconsuming, clothing, moving). If a person is outside the norm, does that make them unhappy and need to be fix? This type of thinking is very similar to the thinking behind the "White Man's Burden" of the American and Europeans.
http://www.grossnationalhappiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Short-GNH-Index-edited.pdf
"Those only are happy...who have their minds fixed on some object other than their own happiness. Aiming thus at something else, they find happiness along the way" John Stuart Mill (Nettle, 155).
ReplyDeleteIs not trying to make yourself happy, the key to happiness?
Throughout the term, many philosophers have touched on this idea, but did not give it another thought because "it cant be that simple." Pop culture reference, In How I Met Your Mother, one of the characters,Robin, swears off dating and says she is not looking to get married, and as soon as she stops looking to date/get married. Not long after she makes this proclamation, she gets married. I think what Mill said ties into the view of previous philosophers that you should do the right thing for the right reasons and everything will work out.
When Mr. Heintz asked us whether the Easterlin paradox was a justification for taxation, much of our class brought up political arguments that supported their ideas of taxation. While that is all good and fine, the real question has nothing to do with political issues. It is whether the Easterlin paradox makes sense. given the conclusion that income beyond meeting basic needs will not increase happiness, the Easterlin paradox does indeed make sense.
ReplyDeleteI can honestly say, having the money to indulge my passions for food, literature, and cinema in ways that I have liked to has made me at the very least, more satisfied with my life. When I was somewhat younger, I certainly was always wanting more, which in a sense, could be defined as "unhappiness," but frankly, as of late, I have developed an enormous satisfaction with the things I have above the bare necessities. My dog is not a "bare neccesity," I would even argue she is a luxury, yet she gives me meaning in my life and more satisfaction than almost anything I can imagine. I enjoy being able to see films on a regular basis. The analysis I can do based on them provides me with far more than a short-term satisfaction. I have been pondering certain David Lynch works and the ending of Carpenter's The Thing for YEARS. I enjoy that. Film is an important way I find meaning, and with only the barest amount of money, I would not be able to indulge my passion for it.
ReplyDeleteI agree we have talked about this throughout the whole term. That when you look for your own happiness so hard you miss it. When you give yourself the chance to find something for someone you can stumble upon the object that will bring you happiness.
ReplyDelete