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."

‘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?

but there is a clear reduction in happiness inherent in any morality — Coben

Reduction but not elimination, to a non-zero value. Exactly what I meant.

The meaning commonly referred to in our language as "happy," seems to be Eaudaimonia — Dranu

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

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).)

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).) — Dranu

Please ignore my last post. I misspoke. Sorry for the trouble.

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? — Dranu

Yes, but it isn’t improper (language being relatively arbitrary), only unnecessary and confusing to qualify ‘happy’, defined as a feeling, with the term ‘feeling’.

Having said that, however, the notion of ‘being happy’ has two meanings - and this is what leads to the more common use of ‘feeling’ as a qualifier of ‘happy’. My father always used to ask me, whenever I visited, “Are you happy?” I found it a strange question, and wanted to qualify it by asking “Do you mean about being here, or generally?”

So when people say ‘I feel happy’, they’re referring to a positive affect that is not necessarily connected to them ‘being happy’, generally speaking. The implication with ‘feeling happy’ is that the positive affect IS the experience. It’s often used this way when one is under the influence of drugs, or otherwise unaccustomed or unwilling to attribute this positive affect to themselves in general.

It is the more general notion of ‘being happy’ that is being discussed here at length, particularly in relation to morality. A lasting ‘happiness’ in this sense isn’t about maintaining a pleasurable life (which is impossible) or about avoiding or eliminating experiences of suffering, or even necessarily about ‘being good’. It’s about maintaining a positive internal experience of self. I can say that ‘I am happy’ when self-reflection generates a positive affect in me.

Many of our experiences of self come from external sources: what we do or say, how others respond to us, what they say about us, what we see in the mirror, as well as our online profiles, friends, family, occupation or material extensions such as clothes, car, house, bank balance, etc. But an internal experience of self is an awareness of our own thoughts, memories, imagination, feelings, knowledge, beliefs, fears, values, motivations and conceptual relations.

If this internal experience of self doesn’t generate for us a positive affect, then we won’t really ‘be happy’, no matter how ‘good’ our external experience of self might become. And if we don’t recognise our own capacity to improve on this internal experience, then we may occasionally ‘be happy’ as a fleeting feeling, but we won’t achieve ‘happiness’ in general: this eudaimonia that refers to interoception of a positive affect in relation to self.