On Happiness

This is a quote from the book "Human Action" by Ludwig Von Mises. I could not make this argument better myself, so I chose to post it without interjection. -JEB

On Happiness
In colloquial speech we call a man “happy” who has succeeded in attaining his ends. A more adequate description of his state would be that he is happier than he was before. There is however no valid objection to a usage that defines human action as the striving for happiness. But we must avoid current misunderstandings. The ultimate goal of human action is always the satisfaction of the acting man’s desire. There is no standard of greater or lesser satisfaction other than individual judgments of value, different for various people and for the same people at various times. What makes a man feel uneasy and less uneasy is established by him from the standard of his own will and judgment, from his personal and subjective valuation. Nobody is in a position to decree what should make a fellow man happier.

To establish this fact does not refer in any way to the antitheses of egoism and altruism, of materialism and idealism, of individualism and collectivism, of atheism and religion. There are people whose only aim is to improve the condition of their own ego. There are other people with whom awareness of the troubles of their fellow men causes as much uneasiness as or even more uneasiness than their own wants. There are people who desire nothing else than the satisfaction of their appetites for sexual intercourse, food, drinks,fine homes, and other material things. But other men care more for the satisfactions commonly called “higher” and “ideal.” There are individuals eager to adjust their actions to the requirements of social cooperation; there are, on the other hand, refractory people who defy the rules of social life. There are people for whom the ultimate goal of the earthly pilgrimage is the preparation for a life of bliss. There are other people who do not believe in the teachings of any religion and do not allow their actions to be influenced by them.

The Science of Le ‘Good’

JEB

Socrates: Shall we discuss the word good

how its very subjective and time sensitive

there is no objective good

there isn't even a constant good, it changes with time

think about it, it might be good for u to smoke right now, but u can't just look at the moment

u have to evaluate it over the entire future effect

Cletus Joe Bob Pickins: entire future? as in eternity?

shouldn’t the limit be my lifetime?

Socrates: well that brings in another factor

its your lifetime if u are an individualist

its eternity if u are socialist

Cletus Joe Bob Pickins: where to draw the boundaries? how does a person even make decisions about what to do in that instant

if they cant be sure its "subjectively good"

Socrates: whatever the voice in their head tells them to do is subjectively good

Cletus Joe Bob Pickins: of course its subjective, but if a lot of people share a specific view of good, then it becomes closer to objective

at least communal good

Socrates: no, i'm looking at each person individually

Cletus Joe Bob Pickins: and im a socialist

cause there is a good larger than the individuals definition

Socrates: well that is where u went wrong

to think that there is a larger good is a mistake and a fallacy

and it will only lead to destruction

Cletus Joe Bob Pickins: its only larger in the sense that several people share the same sense of good

the same view of it

Socrates: oh i see what u are saying

yes, people can share the same vision of good

but u can't coerce others into sharing your vision

Cletus Joe Bob Pickins: no, but knowing how others view good changes how you view good

so ur perception of good isnt developing in a vacuum

Socrates: there is a difference between teaching and forcing

Cletus Joe Bob Pickins: yes

does forcing of good occur?

Socrates: yes, taxation for government projects

and religion are two excellent examples

Cletus Joe Bob Pickins: in the case of taxes, are we forcing people to believe its good

or are we just taking their money?

if they don't see the value in the taxes, then its coercion i guess

Socrates: forcing your good on others, whether they believe it or not is wrong

Cletus Joe Bob Pickins: but there are people that like paying taxes

and buy into it

Socrates: most of them "buy into it" because they are coerced and manipulated by the government through education and the media

Cletus Joe Bob Pickins: so would u say people are coerced into thinking murder is bad?

they are taught taxes are good, not coerced

just like they are taught murder is bad

Socrates: yes, some people are

Cletus Joe Bob Pickins: so people can be taught. coerced almost anything

what point are you trying to make with religion and taxes

Socrates: i'm making the point that coercing others to follow your subjective understanding of what’s good is wrong

Cletus Joe Bob Pickins: is it coercion if they decide its the right thing to believe simply because everyone else around them believes it

and there is safety in numbers

Socrates: that is coercion and weakness, good sir

Cletus Joe Bob Pickins: how can I put your principle into action

Socrates: You can make changes through anarchy, civil disobedience, or politics

Cletus Joe Bob Pickins: how do I apply the lessons of your principles?

Socrates: well once you think the way i do, you can apply the lessons yourself

getting u to apply the lessons without fully understanding their basis is just another form of coercion

Furthermore, what I teach is a Science and, “ultimate decisions, the valuations and the choosing of ends, are beyond the scope of any science. Science never tells a man how he should act; it merely shows how a man must act if he wants to attain definite ends.”

THE END