Was it Bertrand Russel by any chance?

An interesting question you have put forth. Personally, I lean towards the idea that being good and being happy, while intertwined, don't necessarily mean the same thing, and that they are't always able to be used when speaking about the same thing.

Let's take the example of the pen for instance. I think that we can agree on a pen being able to take the characteristics of being " a good pen". We can also agree on a pen being the able to fulfill something, such as "the pen is good for writing on the paper". It is both a good pen, being of favorable characteristics, and it is "good for" something which in this case is writing, so it fulfills a purpose.

Now, if we take this same pen which we have agreed is good and is good for something, and we pose the question to the user of the pen and ask him "Are you happy to receive this good pen? Does it satisfy you?" then things can take a dramatically different context.

First off, lets define happiness. You have stated that it is a fulfillment of something and I agree. Happiness is a fulfillment of joy. You are happy because something favorable has happened to you and that has led to joy, which is another way of saying that you are happy. As a matter of fact, the something favorable in question doesn't even need to happen to you, it just has to be what you consider favorable and it has to be something from which you hope to have joy from.

As I have already stated, this is what I see as the difference as I have tried to highlight in my somewhat rambling way. While happiness and good are both fulfillments' of something, happiness is more towards the fulfillment of a desire or feeling. Happiness is much more emotionally entwined. On the other side of things, being good is a fulfillment of a purpose, it is a fulfillment of an object(in this particular scenario with the pen) achieving what it was made to do. And from this we can surmise that being good is somewhat of a more logical train of thought.

When expressing something or someone as being happy we can assume that this is their emotional state. They have fulfilled their innermost desire(which can be, but is not limited to, fulfilling their purpose) and that has brought them to a favorable outcome in which they find joy. When expressing something or someone as being good, we can assume that they have favorable characteristics and that they have achieved their purpose successfully and in decent manner. While something or someone can both be happy and be good, the two are not mutually exclusive and not always able to be used together. And so I surmise that they are distinct and do differ in the various contexts and meanings that they are used in.

I agree that obesity is a chronic illness and that we do need to cure it, but like any mental illness it has many aspects that we need to assess. Obesity as we know is brought on by a cocktail mix of reasons. Obviously there is the surrounding environment which often has a huge affect on people with obesity. Being surrounded by those with the same condition can often desensitize you to it.

Obesity being a form of self-harm I take some issue with however. I think that depends fully on why a person is obese. If they have reached obesity due to the simple fact that they over-eat, then I don't think that constitutes self-harm. If someone has an eating disorder in which they eat when they are nervous or if they feel sad or some such reason, then I believe in this case that would be classified as self-harm.

All in all, this is a very heavy topic that requires many minds more intelligent than my own to fully deconstruct.

While this is true, I would also add that with these ups and downs, we also have periods of time when we are experiencing neither happiness or sadness. When we are just in an emotional limbo if you will. Some would argue that you are always feeling something, but I am of the opinion that there CAN be times when we feel nothing. When our minds are so busy with other mundane thoughts or we are caught up in a physical, or mental activity, such as when we are busy with work, we can experience some gaps between when we have our next feeling. Be it happiness, sadness, anger or any other emotion.

I too agree ArguingWAristotleTiff, and I would also like to say that if it was in fact my 17 year old child who was in a relationship with an adult in their 40's, I would most definitely be against it, regardless of how attractive that person is. I know that you specifically stated 17 year old SONS in your question, but in my opinion, the gender of the child shouldn't have any effect on our behavior in this instance.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

I believe that the authority would be our moral conscience. If allowing a paedophile to achieve happiness was at the expense of someone's child becoming their prey, how can anyone in good conscience allow them to achieve happiness.

I, of course, can't be sure, but I believe that what Kitty is saying is that for some, happiness is giving in to our dark side. And that may include all the things that were listed and more. So, if that is the case, then happiness isn't a right.

Seems to me that while Abdul and Clark are giving valid points of view all your doing is being a dick and writing a whole lot of bullshit. Why don't you just leave the real writing to the adults and find somewhere else to be a bratty little child.

Happiness is relative. What one person views as a happiness may be viewed by another as absurd or downright preposterous. I believe that happiness is something that we make for ourselves. It's simply based on what makes us feel good. it is in fact, somethong that IS earned. And it is earned by yourself from yourself.