What do you think of Haybron’s view? Are you convinced? Why are why not? What are the outstanding problems or questions about it for you? I am convinced that Haybron’s view of happiness is a perfect account of happiness in regards to practical utility. Throughout his theory, he continuously emphasizes that happiness is far more than a simple fleeting feeling. By distinguishing between three separate forms of happiness, Haybron makes it simple for the reader to understand the significance of both the psyche and well-being of an individual. In psychological happiness, Haybron certainly provides a new and refreshing outlook on happiness. First, he stresses how happiness is actually determined by significant events and our initial disposition
…show more content…
Next, Haybron encompasses both central affective states and mood propensity to describe happiness as something that is long-term. Again this follows practical utility because the long-term trait of happiness shows that it is significant enough to last a prolonged period of time. Following these accounts of psychological happiness, Haybron then provides a clear depiction of well-being. Well-being even more so symbolizes the importance of happiness which Haybron is trying to convey. After reading that the central idea of Haybron’s well-being is that a positive well-being is flourishing on account of a person’s emotional natures, I was finally able to grasp the severe importance of happiness without Haybron explicitly stating so. Happiness, according to both Haybron’s theory and Aristotelian perfectionism, is determined by how I live according to fulfilling my nature. Based on this assumption, I would claim that a person’s goal in life should be to achieve happiness and fulfill the nature of their self. I believe that this is Haybron’s strongest example of practical utility within his theory. Taking all of these descriptions of the significance …show more content…
One feature that Haybron highlights for fulfilling descriptive adequacy is uniformity in regards to intuitions on happiness. He describes an ideal theory to be “relatively uniform—and generate few or no serious counterexamples.” (52) This description is undoubtedly subjective, for what would constitute a serious counterexample? Haybron then attempts to expound on what it means to have descriptive adequacy by stating that it is our “considered intuitions, particularly the strongest and most robust ones, which carry the most weight.” (52, 53) Again, this appears to be a rather subjective and inadequate way to describe what constitutes as valid intuition. Based off these, it appears that anyone could form any kind of theory of happiness by asserting that it held true to their intuitions on happiness. Nonetheless, Haybron anticipates this claim and avers that some strong intuitions risk “changing the subject.” (53) By stating this, Haybron is indicating that some of these claims will not be about happiness, but rather some other concept most likely related to happiness. In addition to intuition, descriptive adequacy also takes into account whether the term “happiness” is linguistically applicable to a new theory. As stated in a previous
Next, Haybron encompasses both central affective states and mood propensity to describe happiness as something that is long-term. Again this follows practical utility because the long-term trait of happiness shows that it is significant enough to last a prolonged period of time. Following these accounts of psychological happiness, Haybron then provides a clear depiction of well-being. Well-being even more so symbolizes the importance of happiness which Haybron is trying to convey. After reading that the central idea of Haybron’s well-being is that a positive well-being is flourishing on account of a person’s emotional natures, I was finally able to grasp the severe importance of happiness without Haybron explicitly stating so. Happiness, according to both Haybron’s theory and Aristotelian perfectionism, is determined by how I live according to fulfilling my nature. Based on this assumption, I would claim that a person’s goal in life should be to achieve happiness and fulfill the nature of their self. I believe that this is Haybron’s strongest example of practical utility within his theory. Taking all of these descriptions of the significance …show more content…
One feature that Haybron highlights for fulfilling descriptive adequacy is uniformity in regards to intuitions on happiness. He describes an ideal theory to be “relatively uniform—and generate few or no serious counterexamples.” (52) This description is undoubtedly subjective, for what would constitute a serious counterexample? Haybron then attempts to expound on what it means to have descriptive adequacy by stating that it is our “considered intuitions, particularly the strongest and most robust ones, which carry the most weight.” (52, 53) Again, this appears to be a rather subjective and inadequate way to describe what constitutes as valid intuition. Based off these, it appears that anyone could form any kind of theory of happiness by asserting that it held true to their intuitions on happiness. Nonetheless, Haybron anticipates this claim and avers that some strong intuitions risk “changing the subject.” (53) By stating this, Haybron is indicating that some of these claims will not be about happiness, but rather some other concept most likely related to happiness. In addition to intuition, descriptive adequacy also takes into account whether the term “happiness” is linguistically applicable to a new theory. As stated in a previous