The Happiness of Others :: Happiness Essays

Written by Dr. Sam VakninIs there any necessary connection between our actions and the gratification of opposites? Disregarding for a moment the murkiness of the definitions of actions in philosophical belles-lettres - 2 sheaths of answers were hitherto provided. Sentient Beings (referred to, in this essay, as Humans or persons) seem either to limit each other - or to heighten each others actions. Mutual limitation is, for instance, evident in game theory. It deals with closing outcomes when all the rational players are fully aware of both the outcomes of their actions and of what they favour these outcomes to be. They are also fully informed about the other players they recognise that they are rational, too, for instance. This, of course, is a very farfetched idealization. A state of interminable information is nowhere and never to be found. Still, in most cases, the players square up down to one of the Nash equilibria solutions. Their actions are constrained by the exist ence of the others. The cloak-and-dagger Hand of Adam Smith (which, among other things, benignly and optimally regulates the food market and the price mechanisms) - is also a interchangeablely limiting model. Numerous whizz participants hit to maximize 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, above 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 configuration to a set of rules) are moral, if their outcome increases advantage (also known as happiness or plea indisputable). They are morally obligatory if they maximize utility and no alternative course of action can do so. some other versions talk about an increase in utility rather than its maximization. Still, the formula is simple for an act to be judged moral, ethical, virtuous, or good - it must baffle 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 distance in the literature. The assumptions are dubious (fully informed participants, rationality in determination making and in prioritizing the outcomes, etc.). All the answers are instrumental and quantitative they strive to offer 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.