This essay will argue in favour of the view presented by Steven M. Cahn that, while society may not approve of immoral action (with good reason) this is far from sufficient to conclude that anyone who performs an immoral action for the sake of happiness cannot be truly happy.
The key example Cahn uses is Judah Rosenthal (a character appropriated from a Woody Allen film) to explain his argument that the happy life need not be identical with the “morally-good” or “virtuous” life (Cahn & Vitrano, 2015). Judah Rosenthal is a doctor who gets his lover killed (after she threatened to reveal their affair) in order to sustain his reputation as a doctor as well as his relationships with his wife, family and community. In essence, Cahn argues that Rosenthal commits an immoral action in order to maximise happiness (and prevent his life being destroyed) and that we can deem Judas happy, despite his murderous act. As such, Cahn argues that morality and happiness are not the same, as while the majority …show more content…
This view then is susceptible to all criticisms of objective list theories; which Cahn notes, in stating that while morality may be an important (or even necessary) condition for a happy life for most people, you cannot generalise this to all people (Cahn & Vitrano, 2015). So while most people could not act as Judah Rosenthal had (and in a Kantian sense of universal principles it would be highly detrimental to society if everyone did) there can be extenuating circumstances for which immoral action will be far more conducive to happiness (Cahn & Vitrano, 2015). Thus, while for most, the happy life is a moral life, this can be a coincidental occurrence and the happy and moral lives are by no means
The key example Cahn uses is Judah Rosenthal (a character appropriated from a Woody Allen film) to explain his argument that the happy life need not be identical with the “morally-good” or “virtuous” life (Cahn & Vitrano, 2015). Judah Rosenthal is a doctor who gets his lover killed (after she threatened to reveal their affair) in order to sustain his reputation as a doctor as well as his relationships with his wife, family and community. In essence, Cahn argues that Rosenthal commits an immoral action in order to maximise happiness (and prevent his life being destroyed) and that we can deem Judas happy, despite his murderous act. As such, Cahn argues that morality and happiness are not the same, as while the majority …show more content…
This view then is susceptible to all criticisms of objective list theories; which Cahn notes, in stating that while morality may be an important (or even necessary) condition for a happy life for most people, you cannot generalise this to all people (Cahn & Vitrano, 2015). So while most people could not act as Judah Rosenthal had (and in a Kantian sense of universal principles it would be highly detrimental to society if everyone did) there can be extenuating circumstances for which immoral action will be far more conducive to happiness (Cahn & Vitrano, 2015). Thus, while for most, the happy life is a moral life, this can be a coincidental occurrence and the happy and moral lives are by no means