An Argument for Happiness

An Argument for Happiness

Brandon Plough, Student Contributor

Hitherto in human society there has been an issue regarding how we can create a perfect governmental system to govern a society of imperfect beings. Many believe that the closest we have gotten to this point of perfection is the United States government, but the lack of actual representation that we get as human beings within the United States says otherwise. The United States government gives us certain rights as human beings, and as United States citizens, but the interesting thing is that despite this many of us feel that we are not represented, and many more people in this country are still unhappy despite having these rights. There is no need to actually reform the entire system of course, as that could never be expected, but rather we as United States citizens need to change our ethical code so that we can act in a way that does not alienate us from one another, for often in our capitalist system many of us are lost in our own individual needs and desires. The ethical code that I recommend is often referred to as strong rule utilitarianism, to be more specific, I would recommend something similar to a system that John Stuart Mill discussed in one of his most famous works, On Liberty. The system laid out by Mill basically recommends that we should base our actions upon what would promote the general happiness.

Most of us continue to live our lives following capitalist ideals of self determination and individualism, while others continue to suffer. If we were to not switch our entire system of government, but rather change our ethical system to one similar to that of Mill’s, then we might find that we will begin to make attempts to help one another instead of continuing to feel alienated from one another. Within this moral system, we would need rules, one of Mill’s principles that he believed would be vital would be a system for dividing the greater and lesser actions that promote the general happiness within the society. A good example of a greater action might be our government funding a cancer research facility. The action of funding this money would be a greater action, as it represents progressive intellectual and practical value for our society. The more animalistic or instinctive desires such as purchasing an overpriced coffee just because it tastes good would be an example of a lesser action, as it represents individualism and no progressiveness for society. 

There are many criticisms for this ethical system, a common one is that this system goes against human nature itself, and as a result of this fact, utilitarianism is entirely incompatible with modern human society. As human beings we do tend to live in an individualistic manner, but what is being argued here is that as a species we need to change our fundamental moral values. The next common argument is that expecting human beings to just suddenly change their values to make attempts to promote general happiness is not a realistic goal or practice. The foundation of this claim is true as well, but we must consider that this system will have principles in the form of laws laws that will incentivise us to help one another. An example that illustrates this claim is if we were to pass somebody drowning in a lake because they cannot swim. As a United States citizen you should be obligated to help this person. If you can swim, then you should be required to make attempts to help this person, or at the very least if you cannot swim, then you should have to call for help. The final common claim in the context of this argument is that this restricts individual liberties. If being obligated to help someone else to limit suffering is restricting personal freedom, then it seems to be worth sacrificing the right to ignore other people’s suffering.

Clearly it seems that if we all start to live in a way that is in line with this utilitarian idea, then we will be able to promote general happiness within our own society. It can be difficult, and possibly stressful to constantly attempt to calculate what will make the most people happy, but this is the best way to shift from the evil nature that has been associated with human beings for far too long. This shift would require some rules of course, as we cannot allow the murder of other individuals if it would in a specific case increase the general happiness. Instead we must have our government there to form an ethical code which we as US citizens must follow both inside and outside of the government. 

There is a lack of representation in our government and in our society, but this is not found within our political system, but rather it is found in human nature. If we cannot act as human beings to change our ethical code, and go against the self-deterministic nature we were all born with, then our society is doomed to promote suffering. If however, we are able to change and go against this cruel nature, then we might manage to form a progressive society in which we promote happiness for as many individuals as possible.

 

Works Cited

DIMMOCK, MARK. ETHICS FOR A-LEVEL. OPEN Book Publishers, 2017.