Lets assume just for the sake of argument that these are four distinctly different paths. You are confronted with a series of choices that determine whether or not you will be happy or miserable in a permenant way. This is not about the ends you have set your heart on, but the means by which you intend to acheive your goal.

Which would be more important?

I can identify schools of thought that represent any one of the four and the answer is far more simple then you might think, if you are being honest and really think about it.

The question for debate:
What is the means to the end of the 'good life'. The choice of catagories should be which one is more important if you had to chose between them.

Some food for thought from someone who posed the question a long time ago:

"EVERY art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim. But a certain difference is found among ends; some are activities, others are products apart from the activities that produce them."

Aristotle's Ethics

You do what you do because it is what you want to do, given the circumstances.

Every action performed by a person occurs because the incentives to perform that action outweigh the disincintives against performing that action.

Some pertinent incentives for action vary in importance between people, and give the appearance of motivation. These obviously include physical needs, as well as financial gain. They also include social needs, such as the need to belong to a group, feelings of moral correctness, and sense of duty.

A man who quests for knowledge does so because the search of knowledge gives him pleasure, the sharing of knowledge gives him pleasure, and/or the possession of knowledge gives him pleasure. A similar statement could be made about power. In fact the maxim, "knowledge is power", bridges the two nicely.

It is facets of civilized society that encourage our "selfish" goals to coincide with societies goals.

Knowledge

My spirituality dictates this choice, as I would guess most people's own spirituality would dictate their choices. A Zen philosophy - the general quest for ultimate truth is the spiritual journey of my life. I would identify the goal as Buddhist, except I'm always hesitant when trying to classify my own "religion" in terms of the history of those who claimed to have practiced it. My spirituality is most closely related to Buddhism, but that's as far as I'd go towards a declaration of religiosity.

The "good life", to me, revolves around understanding the emotions of my life. Understanding why things that trouble me are troubling. Understanding why others hurt, or hurt each other. If you can understand life, you can take the steps to fix the injustices, or to ignore the unfixable. You can appreciate sadness as just an emotion to contrast happiness, you can live a life void of despair. What a great life that will be.

This is all personal decision though. I wouldn't expect any of these categories to be proven "the right way to achieve the good life" or "the wrong way to achieve the good life".

I voted for knowlegde, but was really torn between knowledge and moral righteousness. When I would be at my deathbed, I would like to think that I lead righteous life and did people mostly good, so they would remember me in positive way. But I would also like to learn as much as I can about everything I can in the universe, esp. some things that most of us strive to comprehend our whole lives: purpose of life, ideal soul mate, true love, legacy for future generations, and so forth.

There is no way to "achieve" happiness. When questing is laid aside, desires are become transparent, and thoughts subside, this very moment arises, and with it happiness.

No one can find happiness, or seek it. In fact, it is this very mindset, the search, the goals, the paradigm of linearity, that is the cause of suffering.

I voted for moral imperatives. I find myself happiest when engaged in selflessness. This encompasses a whole host of things in my life. For example, my wife and I just had our first baby. Having a child requires my time, effort, sleep, money, etc. I have less time to do the things I normally would do for myself. But the happiness I have with my son, I have learned, is well worth the sacrifice. Now I can't wait for another one!

I agree with Quarkhead in the strict sense, that happiness cannot be sought and found. If a person is looking to obtaining some goal in order to be happy, the moment is probably going to be hollow. Happiness is found within.

However, there are certainly some choices which bring more joy than others. I'd say that's individual to the person and what they define as pleasurable. If moral objectives are more pleasurable to that person, this would be their choice, ect. So...the pure answer, IMO, is the first, because it encompasses the rest (as pleasure wasn't strictly defined in the poll, and desire could be anything from desire to be moral or knowledgeable, or whatever).

BTW...Congrats, DeerjerkyDave.

I wonder if I failed to clarify my question well enough, let me try this, the central question is basically; What is the good life? The scenario is the choices you make to have a good life and what I have assumed is that this nebulous and admittedly elusive 'good life' will make one happy. Notice the operative word is permanent.



I got one response that is particularly puzzling and that is that happiness is impossible to 'achieve':



What 'very moment' are you refereing to here I wonder? This sounds strangely familure to Buddism (the philosophy not the religion) were it is believed that acknowledging the fact that suffering exists is the first step toward enlightenment. The reason I say that is the end of the first paragraph and the beginning of the second are contrary. Is this a paradox or what?



So I guess you mean that you cannot find happiness by looking for it or pursuing it for its own sake. Maybe there is something to this but Aristotle made the distinction between things that are pursued for their own sake and then others as a means to an end .



This one is delightful, I think Kant would have loved it, his moral philosophy was very much like the golden rule. What an excellent description of how a moral philosophy can make you happy. I remember one of the happiest moments of my life was seeing my oldest daughter for the first time. Its no big secret that parenting is a tedious and sometimes difficult task but I've noticed that mothers often miss this after the child becomes more independent. I quess its the fact that this little person is totally dependant on them.

Selfless moments = moral imperatives = the good life = happiness...what a concept! I know you meant this as more of an insight then a formal premise but I couldn't resist. I am trying to provoke a debate here you know.



So I think you might be admitting that there is a difference. There is an old saying that goes, 'its not as important what a man will do with his money as what he will do to get it'. The only point I would make here is that moral righteousness does make you more knowledgable but would knowledge attained through less then moral means make you just as happy?



I would just ask, 'is the absence of despair' what makes us happy?

I'm a little short of time at the present so forgive me if I rushed through the responses. By all means if I distorted or ignored some of the points made feel free to call me on it. BTW, I tend to favor the moral imperatives, it takes longer but the only real happines if found by moral means.

I would say the "means" to the good life are a good education, friends, as well as close contact with family. It's a healthy balance between all of these factors which leads to a satisfying "ends" of meaningfulness and happiness. It has been my personal experience that when people are missing one or more of these three items, that dysfunction and unahppiness makes its home.

As I have no idea what is meant by "good life" - living the good life? leading a good life? - I will simply respond to the poll question: What is the key to the happiness?

I went with the first option and will therefore speak for all the closet hedonists who seem to be voting, but are too busy pleasuring themselves to post. I would agree with Quarkie to an extent - following a path in order to achieve happiness is like "trying" to be happy. There's no "being on a path" - one is either happy or one is not. The only question really is what gives one pleasure (for want of a more encompassing word).

Of the four "paths" listed, the first strikes me as being the only choice - all the others amount to the same thing. Achieving a moral objective, sublimating an enemy, and attaining knowledge are all things which give people pleasure. While one man's meat may well be another's poison, it strikes me that leading a moral life is the desire to lead a moral life satisfied; a decisive conquest is the desire for a decisive conquest satisfied; becoming enlightened - intellectualy or spiritually - is the desire for enlightenment satisfied. At the risk of sounding like a total sensualist, I cannot imagine anything which would result in a state of contentment or satisfaction or joy which is not in some way the satisfaction of a desire. Even the desire to live without desire, if achieved, is a desire satisfied.

As Phaedrus is defining pleasure as "the satisfaction of a desire", then to my mind, anyone who voted for any of the other three (or anyone who nulled their vote along with their desires) was also casting a vote for "pleasure".

The existentialist path is something I came upon myself as I walked to and from elementary school. If I was not happy in my own mind, nothing in the external world could make me so. If I exist only in my own mind though, do I know that I really exist? Are we perhaps all merely random thoughts in the dreams of a sleeping God? If so, what will we become when he awakes?

Then came the world of timed tests. If you finish early, you can turn the test in and do as you please. In college, "If you can turn the mid-term in after 10 minutes, you're free to leave." I began to think, "Perhaps the meaning of life is that we need to discover the meaning of life for ourselves."

Ponder that thought for a moment. You wake up from a dream at 3:00 AM. It has finally hit you! You have a clear understanding of the meaning of life! An omniscient God says to you, "Very good. You're finished. Next." Your life is over, and you had no opportunity to write the answer down. No one will ever discover what you learned.

I decided that rather than spending my life searching for the meaning of life, and the true source of happiness; that when my time came I simply wanted to be able to say to whatever judge waits on the other side that "I lived my life, and I found it an enjoyable experience. Thank you for the opportunity."

This relates to that train of thought. It's from the Zen calender on my wall:

"True joy arises from sitting in the lap of the universe as the universe itself just sits."

I agree with the thought that happiness can't be effectively pursued as an end in itself. Happiness just happens as you're living life and doing it well. Some things you can't do by actively trying to do them, like for example, going to sleep. "Trying" to go to sleep is the surest route to insomnia.

Ok, lets see if these different views a supportable as moral philosophies.

Pleasure- The satisfaction of desire as an end in and of itself:

By pleasure I didnt mean hedonism, I was talking about pleasure as opposed to pain as a moral principle.

"(1) Recognizes the fundamental role of pain and pleasure in human life, (2) approves or disapproves of an action on the basis of the amount of pain or pleasure brought about i.e, consequences, (3) equates good with pleasure and evil with pain, and (4) asserts that pleasure and pain are capable of quantification (and hence 'measure')."

Its called Utilitarianism
and its a very old and at the same time modern philosophy of morality.

Moral imperatives- Achieving moral objectives.

This is the selfless life, the mind of a proud parent. I like this one.

"Kant derived as a preliminary statement of moral obligation the notion that right actions are those that practical reason would will as universal law...So we experience the claim of reason as an obligation, a command that we act in a particular way, or an imperative. Such imperatives may occur in either of two distinct forms, hypothetical (conditionally demands performance of an action for the sake of some other end or purpose; it has the form)... or categorical. (unconditionally demands performance of an action for its own sake)."

Kant and moral imperatives

Conquest- Subjecting or destroying your enemy decisively

No one really liked this one very much but it is nevertheless an important moral philosophy. These days I'm working for the Army so its disappointing that no one wanted to defend this as a moral philosophy.

"Under conditions of international military rivalry, the free nations, too, become more and more regimented, and liberty in teaching and learning are suppressed in the national interest. Thus, war and the threat of war make education in all nations subordinate to considerations of military strength."

Military rivalry

Knowledge- The truth as an end in and of itself.

This could be viewed as a moral philosophy that a scientist might embrace. Knowledge is power, but does this kind of power translate into moral philosophy?

"The notion of authentically intellectual knowledge -- established on the level of the proper lights and proper exigencies of the intellect -- the notion of science, thus clearly emerged."

Knowledge and morality



Then there would be at least two who understood the meaning of life. You and God, thats a strong basis for a moral philosophy, one that is defensible as a moral philosophy.

I myself voted for moral imperatives, although some points were made that related pleasure as a universal feeling, no matter the road traveled. I agree with this to a point. Growing up in a Christian home, and having a strong conviction in my faith (which up to this point, from what I can tell, the Christian faith has not come into play in this thread) has led me to believe differently.



While I see your point, Quark, and I realize the philosophy in which you're taking in this point, I would tend not to agree with you, and those of you that have agreed with this point. Through my studies of the Bible, as well as other quasi-religious philosophical view points, I have realized that there is a way that you can achieve happiness. Now, whether or not this "happiness" is money, or a good family life, or love, et cetera I can not say. Through Jesus Christ's personal sacrifice for us, he has given us the opportunity to achieve happiness, not only in this world, but the promise of ever lasting life.

I write this post not to "witness" to anyone (for I am not what you might call an evangelist) but to show a view point that says there is a happiness to "achieve" in this life time. I originally said I voted for the moral imperatives, not so much to say you must do good deeds during your lifetime, or anything to that effect, but rather, there are certain morals that go along with the walk with Christ, and I steadfastly believe in those morals.

For a more secular look at this question, I would once again vote for a moral imperative. Basically, as cliche as this might sound, and I am embarrassed to say it, but, there has got to be more than life than just achieving pleasures, whether it be knowledge, power, or this vague "pleasure". Now, for those of you sadistic souls out there who say everything is pleasure for you, and everything is a selfish act, I am sorry, but I must disagree. A selfless act is not committed to make one's self feel good. Sure, there might be some people out there doing "selfless" acts to make one's self feel good, but for the most part, selfless is selfless.

I appreciate all of your time, I hope I put out a different view point that you can all understand.

A selfless act is done either to 'make oneself feel good', or to avoid one pain in favor of another, lesser pain. Life is a balance between avoiding pain and gaining pleasure. The poll didn't offer the 'avoidance of pain' option, so I chose the first. Describe a selfless act that is completely selfless, if you can...assuming we're speaking of human beings, not the theoretical ethereal.

I nullified my vote, having had little personal experience with "the good life."

There is satisfaction in vanquishing one's enemies. Having enemies, though, is not a happy concept. Being vindicated is very satisfying, but a person can feel emptiness after that. Satisfaction is not happiness; sometimes it can be quite grim.

Living a moral life can bring satisfaction. For a few, it is the joy of resisting temptations. For others, it is perceived as an obligation imposed by family or a religious system and as such, it does not bring happiness. Things done out of a sense of obligation are not that rewarding. Being noticed while doing something charitable can bring gratification, but only as long as the person is being noticed, if that is his/her objective.

There is a satisfaction in gaining knowledge, and I suppose that one can achieve happiness by being knowledgeable as long as one does not become discouraged at the inability to change very many things that need to be changed for the better. Knowledge can foster appreciation of many things, but it is the person's response to that knowledge that determines whether it will bring happiness.

Obtaining one's desires (pleasure) is quite satisfying as long as the objects of the person's desires are attainable. Some people will never be truly happy because their expectations of gratification are too high. All it takes is one inconsiderate driver or a surly clerk to burst their bubble of driving a new car on the highway or purchasing some stunningly beautiful jewelry in a jewelry store.

I believe that happiness is elusive, that it is something that you experience when you are deeply involved in doing something else. Any of the pursuits mentioned above can lead to the moment. It is a realization of peace or joy that comes upon you. An overriding desire to have happiness all of the time leads to addictions, but not happiness.

I was torn between the pleasure and knowledge, but ultimately chose knowledge. Though I have to agree with Wertz and the reason I did choose knowledge was because from it I would also derive pleasure. Yet I do enjoy the feeling I get when I learn something new and understand something completely. But will that feeling be the same as when I climb behind the wheel of a Jaguar XJ220 some day? Time will tell.

here in nebraska, their slogan is "the good life". hahaha thats so funny. no offense to anyone that lives here or has relatives, but it sucks. well, that was a bit off topic. but im going to have to go with a knowledge. i try to learn as much as i can, and i have (no thanks to school, mucho gracias to the internet) and its awesome to know lost of information, it makes you feel ...... superior.

After having thought about it a while longer, what constitutes "the good life" to me is basically three things: having the basics such as food, clothing, shelter; loving relationships; and the feeling that I am beneficial to someone else, not just another organism using up oxygen and generating waste.

Does that fit more into the pleasure or morality category? I don't know.

The real choice comes down to how you believe virtue is attained, the Greeks had a word for this, arete, usually translated excellence. Epicurians and Utilitarians are not just selfish pleasure seeking hedonists. They were very into things like culinary are and poetry so pleasure does make sense a a moral philosophy. The thing that gets in the way is what about the pleasure of others. Keep in mind that this is Platonic pleasure and it could include anything from good music to an elaborte dinner.

Now as far as morality as a means to the end of happines, there are some problems with this. I wonder of there is such a thing as being too into moral considerations and becoming either too general or anal to allow any real creative expression. The trouble with maxims like the one Locke came up with is that they are so general.

The 'good life', what an elusive concept.

Interesting comments on here and I wish I had more time to seperate the different ones into opposing viewpoints. But given the level of exchange so far I'll put that off for a while, this shouldn't be reduced into a grudge match. The questions are so deep and the principles of all are so overlaping you really have to take your time with this sort of thing.

I'm just curious, does anyone have a personal experience where they had to choose between morals or pleasure, knowledge or vindication..etc?

I once testified against a friend of mine (needless to say, we stopped being friends). I knew absolutely that she was lying, as she confided in me at the time. I knew that I couldn't live with myself if I watched an innocent man go to prison for a crime he never commited, even though I didn't know him personally. I've never regretted that decision.

One might say that I made the moral choice over pleasure, but I would say I just made the choice of lesser pain.