Incorrect because if it did mean that the world would be much better than it is and it isn't. You do the math... — TheMadFool

I'm sorry I do not think I understand what you mean. Are you saying that if Happiness is Eaudaimonia, everyone would be doing it fully? If so, I can think of many reasons they would not (the chief being ignorance, malice, and idolatry (being caught up in lesser fulfillment).)

‘Happy’ already IS feeling, it doesn’t need ‘feeling’ to qualify it. You’re confusing ‘happy’ as a feeling (which doesn’t require a qualifier) with ‘happy’ used as an adjective....It’s a misuse of language... — Possibility

I do not deny that we can depart from a word's original etymology, as language is relatively arbitrary. However there seem to be some issues if happy is defined as A feeling of positivity, rather than simply positivity. After all, feelings plainly have objects (or they would not be differentiated). It would be, under that definition, improper to say one "feels happy," as happy is not an object distinct from the feeling. Instead, one ought to say something like one "feels good", and that is "happiness".

This seems to me an uncommon choice of language, but its not language I am trying to understand, but the meaning behind it. If that's what you mean when you use that word, then I agree with you, under your definition happy is not the same as good, as it is good qualified to a feeling only. Would you agree with that assessment?

I think the Greeks called this eaudaimonia or flourishing: a state of being a virtuous, rational being. Thus the good you're interested is about eaudaimonia, the scope of which may be expanded to include everything from pens to gods.

You seem to think, erroneously???, that happiness isn't an emotion. Read below: — TheMadFool

Correct, Eaudaimonia means the same thing as "happy" as far as I can tell, and Eaudaimonia clearly means the same as "good."

The meaning commonly referred to in our language as "happy," seems to be Eaudaimonia (though language is arbitrary and you could easily use the word to describe only a feeling, rejecting its etymology from the idea of 'fortune.' Its the meaning I am interested in, however). Nevertheless you would have to throw out the following as meaningless if that were how you used the term:

• "I feel happy" (feelings have objects, but this one would be absurd. Instead it would have to be rendered "I feel good" and feeling good is happy, but it is not an object itself.).
• "It is a happy state of affairs."
• "Happily, it happened."

The use of the qualifier ‘feeling’ in reference to ‘happy’ shouldn’t be necessary. I — Possibility

If it qualifies feeling (which I assume you would agree with), then how does feeling not qualify it?

For instance qualifications of feelings can be quite properly and meaningfully used independent of feelings without reference to any feelings. E.g. "A sad state of affairs."

You are assuming happiness qualifies/designates/characterizes feelings only. If this is so, what distinguishes it from feelings in general (in a way that does not mean "good"?).

If you have trouble answering this do you see my dilemma? A side note to you: don't hear what I'm not saying. I'm not saying feeling good or feeling happy (the same thing, no?) is the same as being good or being happy.

.If I have an affect that is positive, that’s good for me, in itself.

So then happiness is a good feeling by your definition. What then does one mean when they say "I feel happy", if "happy does not mean good?"

seems no contradiction involved in the idea of a bad person being happy, or a good person being unhappy. — Bartricks

I agree, there "seems" so and it's commonly held as the case, but when analyzing the terms the common opinion seems to break down for me.

Can you think of a definition of the two that are distinct and cannot be reduced to each other?

[in reference if positive affect is distinct from good affect]
I wouldn’t use ‘good’ in this context - it doesn’t make sense to me. — Possibility

Then what do you mean by positive affect? I do not know what "positive" means in this context if it means something other than "good." Remember, I am thinking happy, good, and positive all mean the same thing, so I am hoping from some reason for the added complexity of them meaning something different. I am trying to figure out a clear definition for each.

Do you have an example of it being used in this way, — Possibility

Of course: "I have a good affect", meaning it is an affect which gives satisfaction or fulfillment to the end of interoception. Of course since you mean a positive affect is not identical to a good affect, I might be using the term positive different than yourself. I do not know.

n my view, ‘good’ is a misleading term that enables us to associate positive affect without qualification, and make value judgements on the world as if these judgements were objective. — Possibility

Well, maybe they are. It certainly would seem to be a result of the words meaning the same thing if they do. Nevertheless fear of the consequences of the meanings being the same does not mean they do mean something different.

The use of the qualifier ‘feeling’ in reference to ‘happy’ shouldn’t be necessary. It is used only because we misuse the concept ‘happy’ as a qualifier in itself, disconnecting it from the affect or feeling to which it refers. — Possibility

Certainly happy means something in itself without "feeling", otherwise it would be identical to "feeling", and thus the only type of feeling which I assume you agree is false. There must be a way to distinguish it from a "sad" feeling, etc. Likewise, all other types feelings can be used outside the context of feeling as well since they have independent meaning from the feeling qualifier, and by the fact of being types, something other than the genus they are qualified by is their meaning, as this is the case of all types/species.

‘I feel happy’ refers to an immediate recognition of positive affect in interoception; — Possibility

So "feeling happy" means awareness of "positive affect in introception." Is "positive affect" distinct from "good affect?" If so how?

If not, then would'nt it logically follow that since "feeling happy" means "feeling positive", and "feeling positive" means "feeling good", then good and happy mean the same thing even if we normally use happiness in context of a feeling qualifier?

For clarification sake, I definitely agree and understand that normally "happy" is used to refer to feeling, I am just thinking that when we analyze the meaning behind that word it, unqualified, actually means the same thing as "good."

I don’t see happiness as something that can exist independently of the feeling of happiness. — leo

Fair enough. What is meant by feeling, and then, what differentiates the feeling of happiness, from another feeling?

Would you say a pen can “be good” in itself, that it has its own nature that can be fulfilled? — leo

Yes.

If someone uses a pen to write and someone else uses a pen to hurt and someone else uses a pen to point at something, what would be the nature of the pen? — leo

To write. If they intend to use it to stab, they are not using it as a pen.

A desire/purpose is what can be fulfilled, presumably a pen has neither in itself. — leo

Certainly all things besides Being have their nature through another (call it desire or telos, whatever). I do not mean they get it from themselves, but they all have it. That of course would be another debate, but suffice it to say, I simply mean that we call something good in itself when it fulfills what it is, and it is good for x when it fulfills that external x.

Are there other meanings for good besides variations of this use?

When we say “that person is a good man”, we refer to that person’s actions, not necessarily to what he feels. — leo

So you are saying we normally equivocate on the term "good"? If so what are the two meanings if a person who does not have good feelings can indeed be said to be truly and completely good? Without equivocation on the meaning of "good", he obviously could not be, for to lack any goodness is to not be good in some way.

I. @Possibility

The OP questions the difference between ‘being happy’ and ‘being good’, but other posters here have interchanged ‘being’ and ‘feeling’. — Possibility

Correct.

I refer to a pen as ‘good’ when my expectations of the concept ‘pen’ are met. In that situation I would be happy, but I wouldn’t consider referring to the pen as ‘happy’. — Possibility

I am not so sure the pen is not 'happy', and it makes sense to use "happy" this way. E.g. the "happy warrior", when referring to the warrior who fulfills the ideals of warriorhood.

There is little difference between feeling happy and feeling good — Possibility

How would you define "feeling" and "happy" in this sentence. If "happiness" needs a modifier "feeling" to associate it with "feeling" then what does "happiness" itself mean disconnected from that qualifier "feeling"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. @Leo

I don’t see what “being happy” would refer to besides “feeling happy” — leo

What do you mean by "happy" here disconnected from the qualifiers "being" or "feeling"?

...something being good can refer to it being useful in order to fulfill some purpose.But then that means that the same thing can be both good for someone and not good for someone else, depending on what is desired. — leo

Correct, which would be the difference between "being good (in itself)" and "being good for x". Both refer to "fulfilling some x". "Being good" fulfills its own nature and "being good for x" fulfills x.

So being good and feeling good are decidedly not the same. — leo

Yet if one is lacking good feelings, isn't there at least some quality of that person that is lacking goodness? Certainly feelings might not be as valuable as promoting other goodness in oneself, but its not nothing. Hence "feeling good" might not be "being good" even if its necessary condition for fully "being good."