The Happiness of Others :: Happiness Essays

Written by Dr. Sam VakninIs there any necessary connection between our actions and the happiness of opposites? Disregarding for a moment the confusedness of the definitions of actions in philosophical literature - two types of answers were hitherto provided. Sentient Beings (referred to, in this essay, as Humans or persons) seem either to limit each other - or to enhance each others actions. Mutual limitation is, for instance, evident in game theory. It deals with decision essences when all the rational players are fully aware of twain the outcomes of their actions and of what they prefer these outcomes to be. They are also fully informed about the other players they know that they are rational, too, for instance. This, of course, is a very farfetched idealization. A state of eternal information is nowhere and never to be found. Still, in most cases, the players settle down to one of the Nash equilibria solutions. Their actions are constrained by the existence of the others. The Hidden croak of Adam Smith (which, among other things, benignly and optimally regulates the market and the price mechanisms) - is also a mutually limiting model. Numerous single participants strive to maximise their (economic and financial) outcomes - and end up merely optimizing them. The reason lies in the existence of others within the market. Again, they are constrained by other peoples motivations, priorities ands, to a higher place all, actions. All the consequentialist theories of ethics deal with mutual enhancement. This is especially true of the Utilitarian variety. Acts (whether judged individually or in conformity to a set of rules) are moral, if their outcome increases utility (also known as happiness or pleasure). They are morally obligatory if they maximize utility and no alternative course of action provoke do so. Other versions talk about an increase in utility rather than its maximization. Still, the principle is simple for an act to be judged moral, ethical, v irtuous, or good - it essential influence others in a way which will enhance and increase their happiness. The flaws in all the above answers are evident and have been explored at space in the literature. The assumptions are dubious (fully informed participants, rationality in decision making and in prioritizing the outcomes, etc.). All the answers are instrumental and quantitative they strive to passing game a moral measuring rod. An increase entails the measurement of two states before and after the act. Moreover, it demands full knowledge of the world and a type of knowledge so intimate, so private - that it is not even sure that the players themselves have conscious access to it.