C.S. Lewis begins "No Right to Happiness" with the classical story of two married individuals falling in "love" and then divorcing their respective spouses to marry each other for the sake of happiness. This tale is precluded by an acquaintance of Lewis saying "After all, they had a right to happiness." Lewis then continues on to explain how such a notion as a Right to anything as transitory and circumstantial as happiness is folly.
I have to agree with Lewis in this sentiment. The main reason for this is that having a Right is much the same thing as a person or society as a whole has an obligation to give you whatever you have a right to if you should so choose to request it. This seems very wrong to me in the case of happiness because one person's happiness can be another person's hell and if all person's have the same right to happiness then would not these rights void each other out and leave us in the exact same place we started? The other possibility is that some people have a greater right to happiness than others which is against the Constitution and what God says in the Bible and leaves the question of who arbitrates who the more worthy individuals are.
Now this does not presume that an individual cannot be happy. That would make for a dull and dreary world indeed. Rather it means that one can pursue happiness, but like any desire must restrain the pursuit to means which do not infringe on one's neighbors pursuit of happiness or upon the moral obligations of stewardship of earth or caring and loving all things. This should in turn lead an individual to a type of happiness that is superior to earthly happiness and is found when one finds and seeks to become one with God which is not transitory or illusory happiness but is more permanent and is more akin to a life style and that is Joy to which every person has a right and nigh on an obligation to pursue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you, people do have a right to pursue happiness. But to pursue happiness in a sense is quite selfish isn't it? I think that we should not go out of our way for "happiness." Partly because if we do go out of our way for happiness, then someone is going to be robbed of the happiness we are attempting to get. Also, I believe that we should not attempt to pursue happiness because we have no idea what will really make us happy. How many people who pursue their own happiness are really happy? I would say that they aren't happy because they are selfish in their pursuit, and they really have no idea how to pursue happiness.
ReplyDeleteI think that there is nothing selfish about pursuing happiness; the problem is when we take advantage of others or impede on their own pursuit. I disagree with the first comment here on trying to pursue happiness. Why would you not pursue happiness? The only way to find out what will make you "happy" is to look for it. It is impossible to not pursue it. Who wants to go through life trying to stop themself from being happy?
ReplyDeleteI think the right of happiness really boils down to what is morally right or wrong. And if our conscience was more powerful we could not be happy if we were to pursue it by the wrong means. almost a self correcting cycle.
ReplyDeleteI agree however I think that an individual's conscience is far to unreliable a thing to base this off of while I am sure it does help there are many people in this world whose system of beliefs is based on an entirely different set of morals of you have any doubts about this look up Machiavelli's the prince. He suggests that one's conscience should be based entirely on the good of the territory one presides over and all other moral beliefs are only to be used as a cover to help ensure order and obedience which should prevail over all else. If a conscience such as this was the basis then murder and other such crimes would be fully acceptable especially if the conscience of the person was one without a higher goal in mind. In short it is a over arching system of law that protects the pursuit of happiness of all men within it not just a moral obligation which in most cases would help but it is in this society just a little too simple to practically work.
ReplyDeleteI like how you phrased it in the last paragraph, where you say that it's ok to seek happiness as long as you don't infringe on others search, or moral obligations. the one question that comes to mind is, what if, as Lewis says, You are unable to find things which make you happy, because those types of things are out of our control?
ReplyDeleteI think to that end Mitch we become dependent on God to lead us.
ReplyDelete