What is pleasure and what is happiness?
Pleasure had been defined as a basic thing that is localisable, something that gives pleasure in a particular part of your body system. Pleasure is nothing other than a list of things that we desire or express a preference for but the mere enumeration of desires which does not by itself provide any way of calculating it's relative worth.
Happiness is the state that describes a kind of disposition or period. It is a moral state. We have in the intercourse of everyday life intuitions that the right way to act is to produce more happiness.
Life can actually be reduced into a set of measurable and tradable commodities. Economics measure what people are willing to pay over what they are capable to pay.
The distinction between pleasure and happiness introduces an element of adjudication and introduces a suspicious notion that people are always the final judge of what makes them happy.
The good person is that who strives to maximise the sum total of happiness in the society. The role of government is to act so as to maximise the general happiness and amount of pleasure of the society.
A society of radical inequality will not be stable since inevitably there is going to be resentment and revolution. This resentment would lead to instability and an unstable society is insecure and it's where people cannot find happiness in such an environment. If there is so much imbalance and inequality it would be reflected in the total amount of displeasure and such a society will have little pleasure.
There is nothing good inherently about an act. The only good act is the one that produces the most consequences for happiness and pleasure or as a consequence of satisfying people's preferences. This is the doctrine of Consequentialism against the objectivism of Moral Monstrosity.
Pleasure had been defined as a basic thing that is localisable, something that gives pleasure in a particular part of your body system. Pleasure is nothing other than a list of things that we desire or express a preference for but the mere enumeration of desires which does not by itself provide any way of calculating it's relative worth.
Happiness is the state that describes a kind of disposition or period. It is a moral state. We have in the intercourse of everyday life intuitions that the right way to act is to produce more happiness.
Life can actually be reduced into a set of measurable and tradable commodities. Economics measure what people are willing to pay over what they are capable to pay.
The distinction between pleasure and happiness introduces an element of adjudication and introduces a suspicious notion that people are always the final judge of what makes them happy.
A society of radical inequality will not be stable since inevitably there is going to be resentment and revolution. This resentment would lead to instability and an unstable society is insecure and it's where people cannot find happiness in such an environment. If there is so much imbalance and inequality it would be reflected in the total amount of displeasure and such a society will have little pleasure.
There is nothing good inherently about an act. The only good act is the one that produces the most consequences for happiness and pleasure or as a consequence of satisfying people's preferences. This is the doctrine of Consequentialism against the objectivism of Moral Monstrosity.
2 comments:
wOw:
mGf Maverick -- you brought forward my Sundae by 2 dies!
Why on a lurvely day of love and giving you become a foolosoApfer like Desi o'lady? CONtemplation is goode for the soul -- make sure don't join these Bastrad poliTIKUS who have soul'd out NegaraKU!
Now my hAPpinurse is getting hundreds of APs so Desi can get OUR I-LAND for RM20million. Got jalan ah? 30% CONmiss...oso cun!
Desi, tough reading your thesis.
Post a Comment