Do humans deserve happiness?

Anthony Kennedy

To begin this, I will say that I am very new to philosophy and this question is one that I think about very often.

When thinking about whether or not a human deserves happiness, you first have to answer the question: "Do humans deserve anything?". This question is one that I've noticed most people will say yes to, but when questioning why they believe this they can never provide an actual logical answer.

There have been a few instances when people respond "no" to my question and then I say "So we don't deserve to be happy then?". They automatically change their answer.

I do not believe that any human deserves happiness because I don't think that any human truly deserves anything. Even though life isn't something any individual human asks for ( because a non-born being can't think or want anything because it isn't anything ) humans do things in this life that make them bad people. I believe that every person that ever lived did bad things at some point and in doing a truly bad thing happiness should not be something that person should experience.

Happiness in and of itself is something that will ruin the world just because you can't have happiness without anger, fear, sadness. Regardless of what anyone in this world does, people will be upset about something no matter what other people are currently going through.

When people are upset because of life (people will naturally be upset regardless of anything else) and other people are happy than people become jealous and begin hating. This is inevitable and there isn't anything that can be done about it in our world.

When people are just upset, they will naturally cope and get over their loss. It is only when they see others being happy about events they are personally upset about that people begin to hate.

So do humans deserve to be happy even though it is happiness that causes divides in people?

Pantagruel

Hamlet tells Polonius to be sure and treat the actors well. Polonius says he will treat them as they deserve. To which Hamlet replies:

God's bodykins, man, much better: use every man
after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping?
Use them after your own honour and dignity: the less
they deserve, the more merit is in your bounty.
Take them in.

Then again, as Clint Eastwood says, "Deservings got nothing to do with it".

christian2017

↪Anthony Kennedy

Probably not, but happiness is simply not wishing you were dead on a daily basis (not a hard and fast rule but fairly close to the truth). Many Pastors will for instance say don't have pride but pride is a spectrum and most Pastors have some pride.

Possibility

So do humans deserve to be happy even though it is happiness that causes divides in people? — Anthony Kennedy

Happiness refers to a general positive affect. It can be our own interoception, or inferred in someone else from their external behaviour.

I wouldn’t say that it’s happiness that causes divide in people. When people are upset because of life, it’s how they respond to their own lack that causes the divide. When we hate, we attack that which draws attention to an aspect of reality we believe is wrong or should not be - not necessarily what we believe is wrong (especially if it’s something wrong with ourselves).

It’s when we believe that we should have a life without experiencing lack, loss, pain or humiliation that we attack the world without cause. Because there IS no life without these experiences.

Positive affect comes and goes for everyone, and in response to many different experiences. It’s not something that lasts, an accumulatable property or a character trait. We may not even notice it when we have it, especially if we’re focused on something else. We usually package it as a more specific emotion, such as pleasure, joy, excitement, anticipation, contentment, etc. It is when we call it ‘happiness’ that we convince ourselves it’s something we can obtain and hold onto, something we deserve, or a resource that is being intentionally kept from us.

leo

Yes we all deserve happiness, that doesn't mean we can just do nothing and expect to have it.

A child can be happy when his parents take good care of him, if no one takes care of him and he can't take care of himself he won't be happy.

It's possible to be temporarily happy while having no one caring for us, but often we're still relying on things others have built such as technology, so indirectly we're still relying on others. It's possible to be temporarily happy while being alone and relying on absolutely nothing others have built (for instance living on your own in nature with nothing brought from civilization, not even clothes), but even then you're still indirectly relying on ideas that others taught you and that are helping you.

And I believe you can't be happy on the long run by being completely alone, even living in complete isolation far from civilization at some point we need connection with other life, other animals, plants, you take care of them and they take care of you.

We deserve happiness, but we have to rely on ourselves and on others to get it, we can't just expect it to come to us independently of what we and others do.

A Seagull

↪Anthony Kennedy

Well, do you want happiness?

Anthony Kennedy

↪A Seagull

I believe that everyone wants happiness. I'm saying that you can want something without actually truly deserving it.

NOS4A2

↪Anthony Kennedy

No, I don’t think people are necessarily deserving of happiness, but everyone deserves the right to pursue happiness.

deletedmemberMD

↪NOS4A2

No, I don’t think people are necessarily deserving of happiness, but everyone deserves the right to pursue happiness. — NOS4A2

Does that include those whose happiness is born of other peoples suffering or impeding their pursuit of happiness with consequencial unjustified murder of their lives, livelihoods and status?

Or what about those whose greatest joy is in hoarding happiness away only for themselves on the backs of stronger individuals than they whom they allow to live in severe hardship?

A Seagull

↪Anthony Kennedy

Well if you want it, what does 'deserving' have to do with it?

DingoJones

Does that include those whose happiness is born of other peoples suffering or impeding their pursuit of happiness with consequencial unjustified murder of their lives, livelihoods and status?

Or what about those whose greatest joy is in hoarding happiness away only for themselves on the backs of stronger individuals than they whom they allow to live in severe hardship? — Mark Dennis

Well then you have competing pursuits of happiness, and unless you want to embrace conflict then some kind of agreement between the people involved will have to be made. Not that you asked me but I had an answer ;)

Janus

"Do humans deserve happiness"?

↪Anthony Kennedy

No, in the immortal words of Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser:

"Life wasn't meant to be easy".

deletedmemberMD

↪DingoJones

Well then you have competing pursuits of happiness, and unless you want to embrace conflict then some kind of agreement between the people involved will have to be made. Not that you asked me but I had an answer ;) — DingoJones

This is a forum where I feel that technically even when not responding directly we are always asking these questions of the audience too. So your response is appreciated and asked for in my humble opinion.

You make a good point completely and the way we resolves these kinds of conflict of duty sre extremely important. I dont claim to know how to resolve every dispute but first thing I'd personally need to know to make my observations about any given situation I first need to know terms of consent if any were reached, what exactly was consented vs what actually happened and the ability of the consenting party to make informed consent.

For example; The Masochist and the Sadist are a match made in heaven when it comes to consent so long as everyone is informed of consequences to what happens or what is plannes to happen and the same can be said of those who are seeking financial or resource remuneration in exchange for being physically or mentally attacked.

We also have the ability to create and potential to improve upon Consequence free environments through video games and simulations so its not like after a certain level of advancement people wont be able to get their freaky kicks without hurting anyone anyway in a way where they honestly couldn't tell you if its an AI or not but not discounting player vs player simulations.

DingoJones

↪Mark Dennis

Well youre no fun, I dont disagree with any of that. Rude ;)

deletedmemberMD

↪DingoJones

Learning should always be fun ;) #nerd4lyfe

deletedmemberMD

↪DingoJones

Just a suggestion; if you don't disagree with anything, ask yourself why you agree and share that. You might have something new to say on the matter which is important.

Cannot stress this enough, I feel an immense sense of satisfaction when I can not onky agree with someone here but bolster there arguments in my own way. That's just me though. I'm that guy at the back who is just like "Yay I'm helping and I'm fitting in! Just hope no one looks us in the eyes because its awkward as all hell."

Possibility

We also have the ability to create and potential to improve upon Consequence free environments through video games and simulations so its not like after a certain level of advancement people wont be able to get their freaky kicks without hurting anyone anyway in a way where they honestly couldn't tell you if its an AI or not but not discounting player vs player simulations. — Mark Dennis

The problem with this situation, though, is that the value structures of this consequence-free environment are not as ‘isolated’ from the value structures we use in other environments as we’d like to think. The very relativity of value suggests that there is a structure that determines the circumstances under which we would apply our different value structures, enabling us to interact with everyone and everything else regardless of the value structures they might apply in the situation. We need to be conscious and critical of how we determine this overall structure - as a more ‘objective’ reality - to avoid prediction error (ie. suffering) in how we interact with others.

deletedmemberMD

The problem with this situation, though, is that the value structures of this consequence-free environment are not as ‘isolated’ from the value structures we use in other environments as we’d like to think. The very relativity of value suggests that there is a structure that determines the circumstances under which we would apply our different value structures, enabling us to interact with everyone and everything else regardless of the value structures they might apply in the situation. We need to be conscious and critical of how we determine this overall structure - as a more ‘objective’ reality - to avoid prediction error (ie. suffering) in how we interact with others. — Possibility

An excellent point to raise! Maybe I should review how I am using consequence free here; Real consequence free. That isnt the same as completely consequence free. For example we can introduce fixed consequences in video games; for example we if a player deviates from a certain area, they automatically are transported back there and are denied the forbidden area.

You can design a super cop in a simulation of reality with the ability to mete out justice through either punitive of reformative justice without fail.

Or you can design realistic consequences and just have someone repeat scenarios until they figure out which consequences aren't bad for them or others.

Possibility

An excellent point to raise! Maybe I should review how I am using consequence free here; Real consequence free. That isnt the same as completely consequence free. For example we can introduce fixed consequences in video games; for example we if a player deviates from a certain area, they automatically are transported back there and are denied the forbidden area.

You can design a super cop in a simulation of reality with the ability to mete out justice through either punitive of reformative justice without fail.

Or you can design realistic consequences and just have someone repeat scenarios until they figure out which consequences aren't bad for them or others. — Mark Dennis

Too many ‘realistic’ consequences at once in a video game or simulation will detract from the main appeal, which is to be relatively free of the pain, loss, lack or humiliation that pervades real experience. The more ‘realistic’ we make these simulations, the more prediction error will occur, as people struggle to accurately determine the parameters of the distinction. But by the same token, the more we address each prediction error, the more refined and detailed our understanding of these distinction parameters will become - so long as we continue to accept some prediction error (ie. suffering) as a necessary part of the process.

The current market of simulations and VR seem to reflect the current offerings of ‘reality’ TV. It shows where we’re at socially in relation to which consequences we’re willing to accept as necessary, and which ones society in general genuinely believe shouldn’t exist. Any consequence we’re not willing to purposely inflict on contestants contributes to the majority of what we call ‘undue suffering’ in our reality: what we feel is ‘wrong’ with the world.

This is where ‘happiness’ cannot exist from a human perspective. There is nothing in this part of reality that is ‘good’ for humanity. But it’s still real. If we continue to choose not to be aware, to connect or to collaborate with what is ‘bad’ for humanity, then we will continue to experience the same prediction error in our interactions with that reality. And the same suffering will continue unnecessarily. It is in addressing each prediction error (with awareness, connection and collaboration) that we relieve instances of suffering - not in avoiding (ignoring, isolating or excluding) prediction error or suffering in general.

Pantagruel

If by "deserve" we mean "is entitled to" then I submit that no one is entitled to happiness. People are entitled to opportunities to make themselves happy through their actions (right actions I would argue). But happiness cannot be bestowed, only achieved.

TheMadFool

So do humans deserve to be happy even though it is happiness that causes divides in people? — Anthony Kennedy

The notion of deserving/not deserving exists in a causal framework as in what is deserved/not is an effect of one's actions which are causes. Causality can't be denied so easily and so it appears that humans do deserve and not deserve according to their actions.

Happiness and its antithesis, suffering, seem to be intimately tied to morality where good is about happiness and bad is about suffering and the rule is basically this: what goes around comes around. So, in a moral context we may see the good deserving of happiness and the bad deserving of suffering.

So, to simple cause and effect we humans have added another layer, morality, which establishes feed-back loops with the end goal of perpetuating happiness and preventing suffering. It's here I guess that deserving/not deserving comes into play.

Pantagruel

Causality can't be denied so easily and so it appears that humans do deserve and not deserve according to their actions — TheMadFool

True, but this is a mechanistic interpretation of "deserve", if A does X, A "deserves" the consequences of X. Rather I think the question postulates that there is some special consequence "happiness" to which people may have an inherent "right" of expectation. Which doesn't invalidate your valid points about deserving and morality.

TheMadFool

Rather I think the question postulates that there is some special consequence "happiness" to which people may have an inherent "right" of expectation. — Pantagruel

Cause and effect is the dummy. Morality is the clothes the dummy wears. Happiness is essentially cause and effect. Morality decides how this cause and effect will work in terms of deserving and not deserving.

A Seagull

Everyone is deserving of happiness, except perhaps those who would actively try to restrict the happiness of others. (Those who try to restrict the happiness of others will typically fail to achieve happiness for themselves anyway.)

Lif3r

Yes, but not at the expense of others.

A Seagull

Yes, but not at the expense of others. — Lif3r

It is up to each person to find their own happiness.

Craiya

An amazing thought, truly. And to answer your question - I think exactly the same. Not only that people don't deserve happiness, they don't deserve anything. Here's why:

Happiness isn't something a human can deserve. It exists in order to establish balance.

People might start feeling happy because of various reasons - relationships, jobs, achievements/success,... But as mentioned, when they see others being happy, too, it seems that it awakens anger and jealousy in them, making them feel sad again.

E.g. - A man has been unhappy for years. He didn't have any close relationships and owned a very small amount of money. Suddenly, he was offered a job in an office. That made him happy, but most importantly - he was now happy with himself. He thought he achieved something, it made him believe his value was high (or higher than he thought). However, when he entered the office, he saw how many other people got the job as well. Abruptly, this high value he once thought he had, disapeared. He realized that what he "achieved" meant nothing since so many other people have done the same.

It is a never ending circle. Happiness and sadness balance each other as everything in our world does.

Mac

↪Janus

Who said there isn't a treacherous road to deserving or-let alone-outright obtaining happiness? In order to grasp and gain this abstract concept, unhappiness is necessary.

Do humans deserve happiness?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions