In our fast-paced world, everyone is looking for shortcuts to get faster results. Unfortunately, in the pursuit of gaining happiness, we look for pleasure; the short-term solution for happiness. In this paper, I refute the statement that pleasure is the highest means in a good life, but instead, it is Eudaimonia. Eudaimonia translates to happiness that is achieved when we have reached our well-being at its full potential. While Eudaimonia gives a deeper sense in meaning, pleasure is good to have, as long as it is a result of doing something that is considered ethically right by you or by the community. Aristotle and the Skidelskys will support the thesis, while Bentham will provide the counterargument in this paper.
In the “Nicomachean Theory”, …show more content…
It is all right to have a little suffering in you happy life. Joy is happiness of pure pleasure. It is pleasure based. Unlike happiness, you can feel joy even with suffering. Although it does not feel ideal to have suffering, it is needed in life (Skidelskys, How Much is Enough?, 117-121). Under the utilitarian principle, Bentham mentions that people naturally want to have pleasure and avoid pain (Bentham, Selections, 319). Utilitarians argue that suffering cause pain and therefore it is bad. This argument is refuted in “How much is enough?”, both Skidelskys mention that happiness is internal to the essence of personhood (Skidelskys, How Much is Enough?, 100). Suffering is needed in order to learn what is moral. It tells us what is right against wrong. A little bit of suffering should not affect our happiness, because happiness is a state of being.
Bentham gives seven ways to measure pleasure: intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity and extent (Bentham, Selections, 325-326). Applying his measures to Eudaimonia, we see that Eudaimonia is a high means in life. You have high intensity, duration, certainty, fecundity and extent. Only propinquity counters a high measure for Eudaimonia. The qualitative measure of happiness is so high that it trumps pleasure (Skidelskys, How Much is Enough?,
In the “Nicomachean Theory”, …show more content…
It is all right to have a little suffering in you happy life. Joy is happiness of pure pleasure. It is pleasure based. Unlike happiness, you can feel joy even with suffering. Although it does not feel ideal to have suffering, it is needed in life (Skidelskys, How Much is Enough?, 117-121). Under the utilitarian principle, Bentham mentions that people naturally want to have pleasure and avoid pain (Bentham, Selections, 319). Utilitarians argue that suffering cause pain and therefore it is bad. This argument is refuted in “How much is enough?”, both Skidelskys mention that happiness is internal to the essence of personhood (Skidelskys, How Much is Enough?, 100). Suffering is needed in order to learn what is moral. It tells us what is right against wrong. A little bit of suffering should not affect our happiness, because happiness is a state of being.
Bentham gives seven ways to measure pleasure: intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity and extent (Bentham, Selections, 325-326). Applying his measures to Eudaimonia, we see that Eudaimonia is a high means in life. You have high intensity, duration, certainty, fecundity and extent. Only propinquity counters a high measure for Eudaimonia. The qualitative measure of happiness is so high that it trumps pleasure (Skidelskys, How Much is Enough?,