What is Happiness

12/12/21

HR: Notes, Resources Provided, Google, Works Cited, Writing Center; Ryan O’Connor, 12/12/21

WC: 1290

The concept of happiness has long been debated in moral philosophy and has encompassed much of the high-thinking world so far as humans have pondered themselves. Commonly, the concept of happiness remains an abstract subject, however philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham have attempted to create some form of mathematics to represent its characteristics, other philosophers and scientists claiming it is a chemical reaction in the brain, and even some claiming it to be much simpler than that: getting what you want. Ultimately, we will never truly know the answer and all theories could be correct. The thought goes on and on. I would argue that all the theories discussed are all correct and hold their own merit in their own right in terms of how the theories explain how humans experience the emotion and make decisions in order to feel happiness, however, I believe Mill holds the best explanation for a utilitarian belief of what happiness is. I intend to introduce each theory in chronological order so as to better provide later explanation. 

Jeremy Bentham, mentioned above, is the orchestrator of the utilitarian pannomion, which is a complete code of law based on utilitarianism, the fundamental belief that all life is in pursuit of what is pleasurable. In this work, he writes his principle of utilitarianism: “I ought do that act which will bring about the greatest happiness (pleasure) for the greatest number of persons (the community).”[1] Further, and more importantly, Bentham attempted to create a mathematical formula that encompasses all human decisions based on multiple variables including: the intensity of the pleasure, the duration of that pleasure, how certain the pleasure will be given, the nearness or remoteness of the pleasure, the probability the pleasure will lead to another pleasure, the probability a pain of the action will lead to another pain, and finally the amount of people that would be affected by the pleasure.[2] Values of pleasure are called “hedons,” whereas pain is represented by “dolors”.[3] The algorithm should look something similar to this where “I” is intensity, “D” is duration, “C” is certainty, and “F” is the nearness:[4]

{ N [ C (I × D) ]  +   N_f  [ C_f  ( I_f  × D_f ) ] }

The notion that all human decisions are based on pleasure might seem like complete craziness, however it is the basis for most utilitarian belief. This notion can also be referred to as Hedonism. Bentham’s explanation for happiness in some respects sounds both correct and simple, but where Bentham loses credibility is in the fact that all pleasure is measured exactly the same, no matter what action or scenario.  This leaves no room for unique cases of pleasure or pain, either.

            Where Bentham treated all pleasure as the same, John Stuart Mill theorized that some pleasures were significantly more rewarding and important. Mill himself summarized Bentham’s conclusion as “quantity of pleasure being equal, push-pin is as good as poetry,” meaning a mindless game is as rewarding as poetry because of the intensity and duration of the game in comparison.[5] These “higher pleasures” mostly concerned the fine arts such as music, poetry, and other various forms of advanced thought. Mill did not entirely disagree with Bentham not only because he was also Hedonist, but also that he believed that the best way to know if something is right or wrong was to apply a general rule or principle to it, hence his “principle of utility” that states: “actions are right in proportion to their tendency to promote happiness, wrong in proportion to the tendency to promote unhappiness.”[6] Overall, Mill did not entirely agree with Bentham’s view and decided to add quality to the existing intensity and duration factors of the pleasurable experience formula. What results is a much more convincing argument for utilitarianism in that it is objective and avoids the simplicity of Bentham’s mathematical design. Mill theorizes we all fight for the “Ultimate End” which implies that we all yearn to live a life both free of pain and rich in enjoyment and that the best way to achieve this end state is through the accompaniment of higher pleasures.[7] At a certain point, although these higher pleasures are “significantly” greater, as Mill puts it, than bodily pleasures, what exactly does this mean?  Furthermore, there is no hierarchal scale of how valuable each kind of higher pleasure is in comparison to one another, which leads us to think possibly that Mill thought higher pleasures are infinitely more valuable than bodily ones are. Even if this kind of scale does not currently exist, it could if we put invested time to the concept. This view is even more skewed than the simple one before. How can this be possible? This is how Mill loses his credibility in utilitarianism.

            A popular theory in the realm of utilitarianism is called Preference-Satisfaction Theory. It concerns itself with the idea that happiness is governed only through getting what you want. In other definitions, it reasons that any action that maximizes the satisfaction of desires or preferences, no matter what those desires or preferences are for, is correct.[8] The theory, therefore, is extremely simple, comes across as seemingly right, and can be measured, however it also implies you might be happy by getting bad things or harming others, which raises many ethical questions about the eligibility of this theory to be integrated as truth. Even if receiving everything you ever wanted was a means to find happiness, there would still be people miserable after receiving only tangible things and not non-physical things such as love or belonging which are widely sought-after abstract concepts.

            Finally, a scientist might claim that happiness is neither an emotion or feeling, but a reaction in the brain and nothing else. Neurotransmitters such as Serotonin and Dopamine are known components in creating the reaction that is recognized as happiness and excites the certain neurological pathways of the mind that trigger it. Bodily pleasures and mindful ones alike can bring about this reaction for an individual. This is by far the most objectively reasoned definition of happiness, but it seems so lifeless in comparison. However, it does not detract from the truth of the explanation. It might seem as if there was no life in happiness at all, exploiting all emotions including not only happiness, but also anger, sadness, grief, and anxiety as well simply as chemical reactions we have no control over. This theory also then implies that happiness could be found through illicit drugs and by taking risks that excite the mind; thought processes not accepted by the public.

            Utilitarianism aims for every individual to aim for his or her own happiness through actions they can take. Pleasure is the best means to do so, however some might argue that some pleasures are more powerful than others, such as that between the mind and body. Happiness could also be based on the gifts of the secular world or based entirely in your subconscious chemical mind. Truly, all ideas of happiness could be partly correct but relationally, all have their own issues that come into play when further inspected. However, the seemingly correct theory of happiness comes from Mill and his “higher pleasures” trope. Surely, experiencing life to its fullest is the best means and doing things for your own enjoyment is the only true explanation of why humans seek deeper meaning in their lives. Moreover, although the scientific theory of happiness is proven to be true, it cannot be the full ethical truth. It is difficult to imagine all feelings of happiness and enjoyment purely and simply coming from chemicals of the brain and hormonal systems of the body. Without attributing experiences and scenario to the equation, this theory feels cold and hollow.

Bibliography

Crimmins, James E. “Jeremy Bentham.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University, December 8, 2021. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bentham/.

“Felicific Calculus.” Felicific calculus – Example Problems, December 11, 2021. http://exampleproblems.com/wiki/index.php/Felicific_calculus.

The hedonic calculus. Accessed December 13, 2021. https://www.utilitarianism.com/hedcalc.htm.

Miller, Dale E. “John Stuart Mill on the Good Life: Higher-Quality Pleasures.” 1000-Word Philosophy, 2020. https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2020/09/26/john-stuart-mill-on-the-good-life-higher-quality-pleasures/.

Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.

[1] Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, London, 1789, chap. 4

[2] The hedonic calculus, accessed December 13, 2021, https://www.utilitarianism.com/hedcalc.htm.

[3] James E. Crimmins, “Jeremy Bentham,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Stanford University, December 8, 2021), https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bentham/.

[4] “Felicific Calculus,” Felicific calculus – Example Problems, December 11, 2021, http://exampleproblems.com/wiki/index.php/Felicific_calculus.

[5] Dale E Miller, “John Stuart Mill on the Good Life: Higher-Quality Pleasures,” 1000-Word Philosophy, 26, 2020, https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2020/09/26/john-stuart-mill-on-the-good-life-higher-quality-pleasures/.

[6] Miller, “John Stuart Mill on the Good Life: Higher-Quality Pleasures.”

[7] Miller, “John Stuart Mill on the Good Life: Higher-Quality Pleasures.”

[8] Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.