Is virtue happiness?

[Terxpahseyton]

I am just interested in people's views/arguments on this.

Discuss/Opiniate!

 

[Borachio]

Well, no!

Virtue isn't the same as happiness.

But probably you mean "Are virtuous people happy?" And the corollary, "Are non-virtuous people unhappy?" (Mebbe?)

I think the answer to both those questions is no, not necessarily.

However, having an untroubled conscience is probably a requisite for happiness, so that somebody who is virtuous, and untroubled, may well be happy.

There may even be a negative correlation, though: the person who is most virtuous might be the one who is most troubled by their* conscience.

(*Blow me down! There's the plural possessive pronoun used in a singular sense. I don't like it.)

But how we determine who is virtuous, and who isn't, is a conundrum that defeats me quite. I'm not even sure I want to know how.

 

[Mise]

To reiterate what we discussed in the other thread, I think that happiness that derives from virtue is a better, more fulfilling, more enduring form of happiness than happiness that derives from less virtuous sources. This isn't to say that happiness that derives from arrogance (say) isn't really happiness -- merely that it is a less desirable form of happiness than happiness that derives from true love.

A trivial example might be drugs: drugs can make me happy, but the source of that happiness and thus the happiness that results is not as meaningful, fulfilling or enduring as "truer" forms of happiness. A less trivial example might be if I go for a promotion at work. I might believe that I want to get that promotion because it is a great job, more responsibility, more money, etc etc. Even though the hours are longer, I believe it will be better for me and make me happier, more satisfied, etc, for all those reasons. However, if, in reality, I only want to get the promotion because I want to be thought of as more powerful or because I'm jealous of my friends who have all been promoted more quickly than me, then any happiness I derive from getting the promotion will be in some way diminished. It won't be "true" happiness, because the happiness isn't being derived from things that I actually desire, such as ambition or competitiveness, but from things I wish I didn't have as much of, such as pride, greed or jealousy.

Perhaps, if I realised this soon enough, I might think of other ways to become happy. Perhaps I would be happier if I were less prideful, greedy or jealous: I should work on that, rather than trying to satiate those desires through material gain. This, of course, is not to say that pride, greed or jealousy aren't useful motivators -- clearly they are, as they might motivate me to get a better job that I don't truly want. But wouldn't it be better to get that job because I am ambitious, than because I'm jealous? Wouldn't I be a lot happier, and wouldn't that happiness be more meaningful, fulfilling and enduring? Wouldn't it be better still to figure out what will really make me happy, and go for that instead? Maybe I would learn to cherish the free time my present job affords me, and take up painting instead. Maybe that would make me not just happier, but a better kind of happy.

 

[Flying Pig]

Logically speaking, people who mistreat their pets must be happy with it, otherwise they'd stop doing it.

I think that happiness that derives from virtue is a better, more fulfilling, more enduring form of happiness than happiness that derives from less virtuous sources

Sounds suspiciously like Mill's 'pig and Socrates' aphorism, which always struck me as horrendously elitist. 'If you don't agree with me, you're a fool', essentially.

 

[Hygro]

Logically speaking, people who mistreat their pets must be happy with it, otherwise they'd stop doing it.

That defines happiness as whatever someone does.

 

[Mise]

@FP: I'm not familiar with that - what do you mean?

EDIT: Is this article a fair summary?: http://askaphilosopher.wordpress.co...fied-socrates-is-better-than-a-satisfied-pig/

 

[Traitorfish]

Logically speaking, people who mistreat their pets must be happy with it, otherwise they'd stop doing it.

That defines happiness as whatever someone does.

Yeah, it's not that difficult to find examples of people who frequently and even habitually engage in behaviour that they derive no happiness from, which actually makes them unhappy, and they may be aware makes them unhappy. Drug addicts or alcoholics are the obvious example, but you can also look at people with anxiety, depression or obsessive-compulsion disorders, and right down to such unremarkable, everyday, "normal" behaviours as people fretting about their hairline or body weight.

We can only assume that people are happy with their behaviour if we assume that the drive towards immediate happiness is a constant and universal motivation, and I don't think that's true at all. People strive for all sorts of things, like security and acceptance, and while we might describe that as striving towards happiness in that we expect security and acceptance to make people happy, it doesn't mean that the behaviour itself is a source of happiness.

 

[Paul in Saudi]

Well C S Lewis pointed out, rightly I think, that no sin can produce a pleasure. If virtue is the opposite of sin, then yes, virtue is happiness.

 

[dusters]

Since i consider myself to be rather virtuous - yes, I'm happy when i can live up to my standards. And i fall in deep sadness when i disappoint myself.

It's kinda Taoism - i strive to be in balance. When i fall down, i look back, apologise, understand that i'm still just a human who errs and try to improve.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Slight modification to the question;

Is happiness a virtue?

 

[Flying Pig]

That defines happiness as whatever someone does.

No rational person habitually chooses to do something unless they think it makes them happy in some way. It follows that anything that somebody rational chooses to do habitually is something that they think makes them happy (or will lead to making them happy) in some way. Not so? Even drug addicts and alcoholics are doing what makes them least unhappy, because they think that not drinking and taking drugs hurts more than taking drugs. Perhaps 'happy' was too optimistic a word, but certainly 'as little unhappy as possible'.

 

[Darkflight]

What does "virtue" mean in this case?

 

[Traitorfish]

No rational person habitually chooses to do something unless they think it makes them happy in some way. It follows that anything that somebody rational chooses to do habitually is something that they think makes them happy (or will lead to making them happy) in some way. Not so? Even drug addicts and alcoholics are doing what makes them least unhappy, because they think that not drinking and taking drugs hurts more than taking drugs. Perhaps 'happy' was too optimistic a word, but certainly 'as little unhappy as possible'.

If we're going to hypothesise a perfectly- or even just mostly-rational actor, then we have to ask if they would engage in that sort of behaviour in the first place. I think that most of us would tend to think that a rational actor would not engage in pointlessly destructive behaviour like abusing animals or developing addictions, and there's no going to be a lot of mileage in looking at a person who behaves irrationality and attempting to describe that behaviour in terms of rational self-interest.

 

[duckstab]

No rational person habitually chooses to do something unless they think it makes them happy in some way. It follows that anything that somebody rational chooses to do habitually is something that they think makes them happy (or will lead to making them happy) in some way. Not so? Even drug addicts and alcoholics are doing what makes them least unhappy, because they think that not drinking and taking drugs hurts more than taking drugs. Perhaps 'happy' was too optimistic a word, but certainly 'as little unhappy as possible'.

I think most people are rarely rational. We make decisions about our actions primarily by habitually following our initial impulses. We seldom engage in rational deliberation beforehand and even more seldom evaluate the results of those actions to inform our future choices. It's possible to train oneself to do otherwise, but it's a long process.

If we really did observe our actions and learn from them, we would tend to choose more virtuous behavior because such behavior tends to result in greater happiness and less suffering.

 

[Flying Pig]

I can imagine a person who enjoyed hurting animals and at least the early stages of developing an addiction - though one thing I do reckon about addictions is that what makes them so difficult is that you take them on to hide from something else, and confronting that something else is scarier than just staying on them.

If we really did observe our actions and learn from them, we would tend to choose more virtuous behavior because such behavior tends to result in greater happiness and less suffering.

Depends whose definition of 'virtue' you use, I think. Most religious codes of morality seem expressly designed to deny at least some level of earthly pleasure so as to deserve a good afterlife.

 

[Borachio]

Is happiness a virtue?

I don't think it is. Happiness is a certain state of mind.

Is being sad, or depressed, a virtue?

Or more starkly perhaps, is being angry a virtue?

Virtues are more like (good) qualities of behaviour, or restraint.

Mebbe? Don't know. I can't say I've ever given much thought to virtue, per se.

 

[AdamCrock]

The happy life is thought to be one of excellence; now an excellent life requires exertion, and does not consist in amusement. If Eudaimonia, or happiness, is activity in accordance with excellence, it is reasonable that it should be in accordance with the highest excellence; and this will be that of the best thing in us.

In accordance to Aristotle quality of life as he said "one of excellence" certainly translates to happines aka. euadaimonia I also agree on the point he made that happines is not just plain amusement but indeed a virtue that requires some effort Often misunderstood is the Greek concept of virtue meaning that it's not only a moral aspect of "doing good" but it applies to everything. Like for example speed is a "virtue" of a horse. From that point of view I'd say that overall happines derives from an effort to make Your life better and thus the happines achieved that way is a virtue of life.

 

[duckstab]

Depends whose definition of 'virtue' you use, I think. Most religious codes of morality seem expressly designed to deny at least some level of earthly pleasure so as to deserve a good afterlife.

Well, Buddhism for one takes a more utilitarian tack: it defines virtue/nonvirtue in terms of what leads either away from or towards suffering. We're not "bad people" if we choose the latter over the former, just people who make bad decisions. If my happiness depends on the suffering of others, I can't reasonably expect that they're going to allow my happiness to continue if they can do anything about it.

Denial of earthly pleasure? Only to the extent that those pleasures contain the seeds of suffering. Addiction to drugs, food, sex, or whatever, are obvious examples. But at a more subtle level, all sensual pleasures have the potential to cause suffering because they end. It's not that there's anything inherently wrong with enjoying them, it's just that if our happiness depends on something that's going to end, then it's a doomed exercise from the beginning, isn't it?

 

[Flying Pig]

Well, Buddhism for one takes a more utilitarian tack: it defines virtue/nonvirtue in terms of what leads either away from or towards suffering. We're not "bad people" if we choose the latter over the former, just people who make bad decisions. If my happiness depends on the suffering of others, I can't reasonably expect that they're going to allow my happiness to continue if they can do anything about it.

Denial of earthly pleasure? Only to the extent that those pleasures contain the seeds of suffering. Addiction to drugs, food, sex, or whatever, are obvious examples. But at a more subtle level, all sensual pleasures have the potential to cause suffering because they end. It's not that there's anything inherently wrong with enjoying them, it's just that if our happiness depends on something that's going to end, then it's a doomed exercise from the beginning, isn't it?

Not really - otherwise you can't enjoy a good meal, a good film or a good conversation. Perhaps basing all of your happiness on things which are going to end is silly unless you can find new transient things to keep you permanently occupied.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well C S Lewis pointed out, rightly I think, that no sin can produce a pleasure. If virtue is the opposite of sin, then yes, virtue is happiness.

Most Christian "sins" can be quite pleasurable