Thoughts on Happiness, Aristotle, and Virtuous Life

     Aristotle forces his readers to think deeply on their personal values when he discusses virtues and happiness.  According to Aristotle, there is some common good and it, "...has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim (Aristotle 694)."  He further goes on to say that this great good that all things aim for is happiness; once it has been reached, there is no other end to be acquired.  Despite the fact that all people strive for happiness, there are many different views on happiness among men.  Many people believe that Hedonism and earthly pleasure are the keys to happiness.  Others, like politicians, believe that honor is the source of true happiness.  A more select and contemplative few believe that happiness is achieved through virtuous acts.  Aristotle believes that there must be a balance in all of these to reach happiness.
     I personally agree with Aristotle's philosophy of balance.  In order to reach true happiness, people must accept and enjoy what worldly pleasures they have been given as well as live with a sense of honor.  However, without virtue, pleasure and honor can cloud ones vision.  If a person spends too much time enjoying life through material possession and pleasure, they will miss the opportunity to explore their capabilities as a human rather than an animal.  If a person spends their life focused on maintaining their own honor, they may behave wrongly in order to please the wrong people or behave recklessly in order to appear brave.   Therefore, these must be kept in check by virtuous acts.  Having grown up Catholic, I firmly believe that virtue and kindness play a very important role in a person's happiness.  However, as a realist, I also believe that these cannot stand alone.  This being said, all people think and act differently by nature.  Because of this, it is important that people experience and investigate many possible means of happiness in order to understand what they believe, and what makes them happy.

Martin Luther King Jr - America's Gandhi

     Aside from being one of the most loved and highly regarded civil rights activists in American history, Martin Luther King Jr was a strong believer in peaceful protest.  He led many groups in sit ins and marches all of which were non-violent.  In a way, he led a movement similar in nature to the Satyagraha.  He did not strictly abide by the tenets of the Satyagraha but his beliefs went hand in hand with Gandhi's when it came to the government and law.  Summarizing the two great men, they believed that it is a persons duty to follow laws as long as they are morally sound.  If a law, however, violates your personal values,  it is your duty and obligation to resist it non-violently and accept whatever punishment is given you.  

     Both men were subjected to punishments due to their protests and both men received the utmost respect from their followers because of this.  Through acceptance of punishment, both men drew attention and although indirectly, this led to the success of their movements.  Therefore, it can be deduced that peaceful, non-violent resistance is not just an idealistic dream solution, but a very plausible, practical, and wise one.  Martin Luther King Jr. is quoted as saying, "The means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek (King 228)."  This is again in accordance with Gandhi and further motivation to take a peaceful approach to any issue.  It is impossible to achieve true peace and equality through violence and hatred, therefore peaceful means must be employed.  It may seem unusual to compare two great men from such different places and backgrounds, but fundamentally, King and Gandhi both taught the same ideals to two different groups.  Both scenarios were different, and the outcomes were not identical, but they both shared the same purity in their purpose.  They achieved peace through peace and created two excellent arguments for a more peace and love centered world.

Satyagraha and Soul Force

     I believe that Gandhi was a strong willed man, with noble aspirations.  Unfortunately the form of peaceful resistance that he teaches comes with hefty sacrifices; that most people in westernized society are unwilling to make.  I personally could not make the commitment to giving up my comfort and stability as an American citizen in order to express my beliefs.  In order to advance on the social ladder, it is necessary to adhere to every aspect of the government and live one’s life by the book.  If I were to ignore a law because it was in conflict with my moral standing, I would be reprimanded by fine or even arrest.  This would destroy everything that I have worked so to build up in my career as a student and as a private citizen.  Eventually protesting in this manner leads to a change but it is a massive commitment that takes a much stronger man than I to adopt this lifestyle.

     This is not to say that people should not protest in such away.  I believe that Gandhi is accurate in saying that the most positive result comes from the most peaceful action.  The idea that the ends are always achieved by a specific means can be exemplified in this passage: "If I want to deprive you of your watch, I shall certainly have to fight for it; if I want to buy your watch, I shall have to pay for it; and if I want a gift, I shall have to plead for it; and, according to the means I employ, the watch is stolen property, my own property, or a donation (Gandhi 11)."  It is difficult to dispute the truthfulness of this statement and therefore just as difficult to pick the most desired end and most desired mean.  If you wish to physically fight for what you believe in, you choose to live with the resistance of others and the ensuing consequences.  If you wish to achieve your goal through peaceful transaction, you choose to hurt yourself in some manner.  Being that I am just as the beginning of my adult life, I am unwilling to protest through means that will put me at a disadvantage in the future.  This view may be controversial being that involves little expression of my own opinions, but it is the safest choice I can make before I have achieved any kind of stability.

Taoism vs Machiavell-ism

     The writings of Lao-Tzu give a brief outline of the fundamentals of the Tao.  His writings are meant to serve as a set of guidelines for effective ruling while also teaching readers how to live peaceful and happy lives.  His teachings depict a world of peace, harmony, and oneness but in comparison to modern society can come off as a ideological impossibilities. Machiavelli's The Prince also targets rulers but from a point of view grounded in the harsh realities of the world as it is.  Machiavelli discusses the ideas of peaceful, just, and kind leadership, and defines them as impossible and unrealistic.  His belief is that, in the real world, humans are intolerable and must be treated as the flawed subjects that they are.  This is in contradiction to Lao-Tzu but they both make very  valid statements.

     In a world prior to modern societies, governments, wars, and technologies, Lao-Tzu provides intelligent and reasonable advice.  The central theme of Lao-Tzu's writings can be seen in this passage: "Throw away holiness and wisdom, and people will be a hundred times happier.  Throw away morality and justice, and people will do the right thing.  Throw away industry and profit, and there won't be any thieves." (24)  The idea that without potential for evil, it will not happen is a simple yet brilliant idea that goes against the fundamentals of modern society.  Prior to the development of nations and superpowers this logic could have prevented ages of war, death, and destruction.  Unfortunately for the twenty-first century, it is no longer possible to effectively act upon Taoist ideals and therefore, Lao-Tzu must give way to Machiavelli.

     Machiavelli created The Prince after many great nations had risen and fallen, giving him an edge on the development of practical leadership advice.  His teachings are based on a more cynical and negative view of human nature.  While Lao-Tzu teaches that human nature will lead to positive results, Machiavelli supports the idea that humans as a whole are inconsistent, ill-mannered, and not to be trusted with power over themselves. In The Prince he explains how to remain in power for the longest possible window of time through whatever means necessary.  Be it deceit or brute force, all things are forgiven as long as they ensure the security of one's nation and one's position of power.  In Today's society, this system of ruling is much more applicable than the Tao but this does not make it the best option in the world which has adopted a system of Globalization.