Friday, September 11, 2015
"Happiness as the Highest Good" cannot be proven.
Early in the Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle says happiness (eudaimonia) is the highest good, because all chains of reasoning for why people choose to do certain actions seem to point back to it. For example, one might ask why people attend college. One answer might be to have a good career, and they want a good career either because it makes them happy, or because it pays well, which allows them to survive and be happy. Another person might attend college simply to become smarter or wiser, and they desire wisdom because it brings happiness. All such chains of asking why people do things that have been asked so far eventually lead to happiness, so Aristotle concludes that every such chain will end in happiness. This, ultimately, is an assumption, since it cannot be conclusively proven. In mathematics, one can begin with a statement that is known to be true, and transform it using definite mathematical laws to prove another mathematical statement to be true (and even some of the most basic axioms of mathematics are assumptions). This is not the case with Aristotle's claim - all he can show is that every known chain of decisions seems to end with happiness. This is very strong evidence, but it is not proof. At best, it is simply a theory which explains every known case. One day, someone may ask why someone did some action, and the answer may be something completely different than happiness. "Happiness as the Highest Good" is certainly the best theory we have to explain these cases, but it is ultimately an assumption.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't think that Aristotle claimed that "every known chain of decisions seems to end with happiness." I think that only the decisions that are in development of virtue and are influenced by reason can end with happiness. I do know that people who only make decisions with only the consideration of themselves and no consideration of reason are never satisfied and, the ones I have met, at least, are bitter, annoying, generally rude, and will probably never be happy.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that Aristotle claimed that "every known chain of decisions seems to end with happiness." I think that only the decisions that are in development of virtue and are influenced by reason can end with happiness. I do know that people who only make decisions with only the consideration of themselves and no consideration of reason are never satisfied and, the ones I have met, at least, are bitter, annoying, generally rude, and will probably never be happy.
ReplyDeleteI think you raise a valid point. As we cannot definitively prove whether happiness is or is not the reason for 100% of every person that ever has or ever will exist, from a scientific standpoint we cannot use it as anything more than a theory. Many scientific ideas that we take for granted are ultimately just theories. They, like Aristotle's idea of happiness as the ultimate goal, may have strong proof, and scientists might think them to be the ultimate answer to whatever question they address, but with time they could still be disproved with further research. As long as we're speaking of Aristotle, I would like to bring up Aristotelian physics. For several centuries, many people accepted his theories as fact, but they were eventually superseded by Newtonian mechanics. That's not to say that something only being a theory is inherently bad or wrong. In fact, I think the mindset of theory=unsound is the foundation for many scientific miscommunications. I just feel that until it can be definitively proved it is, as in the scientific community, a philosophical theory rather than a philosophical law.
ReplyDeleteI think that you pose a very interesting view in your post. I really liked how you brought in math to make your point because math is not something that I would think to use (or know how to use. Math isn't my strong suit). It makes sense to refer to Aristotle's ideas as theories, especially when you take into account Plato's differing views and the fact that they cannot both be right. Thank you for your perspective on the matter, I find it very interesting.
ReplyDeleteYou raise an interesting opposition to his claim, but I believe that it ultimately was a theory and it was his theory to explain virtues. I cannot think of any decision that I would ever make that would not have some motive of happiness, but that is just me agreeing with Aristotle I guess. Things like this that are philosophical are harder to prove because they cannot be drawn out with numbers or shown with data, and so I see where you would come to this conclusion that Aristotle's theory is not valid, but I cannot claim that I agree.
ReplyDeleteRichard,
ReplyDeleteI do agree with your point. I am a psychology major but we still abide by the scientific method. Aristotle's views on happiness can at most be seen as a theory rather than an actual proven law. He used observation, rational reason and deduction to come to the conclusion that happiness must be the highest good. I like how you compared this to math because it tied your point together. I think that recognizing that it is merely a theory is important in that we can have opposing discussion, because neither Plato's nor Aristotle's views have to be wholly right.