Ana-Miruna Polezache, 12 u 3

IS MORAL HAPPY? or ON HOW WE SHOULD DEFINE MORALITY IN ORDER FOR IT TO SPELL HAPPINESS

Morality has been a well debated subject in both philosophy and religion and its link to happiness has been interpreted in many forms. Before discussing either of these two concepts morality and religion - I think it is best to clarify what each of these actually mean , as these are personal concepts that are translated differently for each individual. Morality is the principles of right or wrong behavior , a system of principles concerning right and wrong behaviour that is accepted by a particular group of people, the degree to which something is considered to be right or wrong .1 It was also thought to be based on an innate sense of reason, in which we evaluated how good or bad our actions are by comparing them to an eternal, changeless Form, or standard (Plato) , a result of human emotion and that is subjective2 or a result of social contract maintaining that society should be regulated by a central power3 . Happiness is defined as a state of well-being and contentment, a pleasurable or satisfying experience.4 Happiness was considered the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence ( Aristotle) . Personally, I think that happiness is indeed a state of well-being contentment , a state that is so rarely encountered that it has become Aristotle said, the only aim of human life. I correlate happiness with freedom, with a true freedom of choice, with the absence of everything
1 2

and , as true that

The Macmillan English Dictionary Hume, David , Of Virtue and Vice in General , p 15 3 Hobbes, Thomas Of the Natural Condition of Mankind, as concerning their Felicity and Misery , p 4 4 The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary

can make one biased and thus influence in any way, or in any matter ones decision. My own definition of morality would be a set of personal values, that an individual is never even inclined to overpass , but I think that in todays society the concept of morality has gained a different meaning , that of a set of values, both personal and social , that an individual should not overpass. Having in mind my own, personal understanding of morality, I dare say that one can be truly happy when he or she is truly moral , because truly moral would read free ( without any consideration for any rule that does not come naturally to the certain individual). As I am aware that the world is not the utopia that I painted in my mind, I would like to analyze and debate the connection between happiness and morality , understanding morality in the modern sense (a set of values, both personal and social , that an individual should not overpass) . In my opinion , one can be truly happy only when he or she sets himself/herself outside of any premade set of values , outside of any collective code of rules , outside anything that does not come naturally to the specific individual . My hypothesis will therefore be: true happiness is only possible when accepting your inner guidelines and no other guidelines of any kind . I have documented my argumentation, by consulting and quoting from On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense ( Friedrich Nietzche ) , Homo Ludens ( Johan Huizinga) and Morals and Morality ( Javed Ahmad Gavidi ) . My arguments will be based on theories and facts concerning truth and lies and whether there is in fact any difference between the two , hypocrisy or social conduct and how they could basically be considered the same , terrorism and whether it can or can not be morally justified. Nietzsche believes the very idea of truth to be a lie. Truth is not an elephant that we must look at from multiple perspectives under this view. Rather, truth is simply the name given to the point of view of the people who have the power to enforce their point of view. Therefore what can be true for one individual is not necessarily true for the others . Moreover what one can perceive as being the truth can be received as a lie by another , creating a disrupting in balance. If neither of us would categorize our actions or sayings as truths or lies , we could perceive them as what they really are : multiple, different perspectives of the same reality, all valid and emotionally valuable. Nietzsche is critical of the very idea of objective truth. That we should think there is only one right way of considering a matter is only evidence that we

have become inflexible in our thinking. Such intellectual inflexibility is a symptom of saying no to life, a condition that Nietzsche abhors. A healthy mind is flexible and recognizes that there are many different ways of considering a matter. There is no single truth but rather many5. This can be very well translated and applied to morality. Nothing can be truly moral, universally accepted as moral , as people have different outlooks on morality, due to the cultural diversity. This way, something can be truly immoral in one culture ( pedophilia in Catholic states) and morally accepted in another culture ( a form of pedophilia in the gipsy culture , where under aged girls can get married with boys their age or with grown up men) . Different outlooks on morality can be encountered inside the same cultural pattern, too. There are a series of factors that influences ones set of values, factors like education, parental or entourage influence, religious beliefs, political views etc. This smaller or bigger moral distortions inside or outside a cultural group will prevent an individual struggling to be considered moral from being happy. Our pursuit of happiness ends when we really are at peace with ourselves, when we are sure that the decisions we made were non-directed by exterior factors, in other words when we are free. Therefore, I think its fair to say that no person that struggles to obey the moral social code will not overpass his / hers personal moral code ( even if this one is minimally different from the first) and will get stuck trying to qualify as moral in every persons book. This is , in my opinion, strongly opposed to the freedom and the sense of liberation brought by happiness. As a second argument I would like to bring up Huizingas Home Ludens , where he carefully establishes two types of games paiedia and ludens 6 that are correspondent to the two types of selfs anima and persona7 . Paiedia is the game in its purest form, that can only be associated with the process of creating, with freedom , while ludens is the game after it has been captured by rules . Anima represents the human core, the spirit, the self in its purest form, the freedom, while persona is the social mask that we have designed in order to be a part of a society, in order to be integrated and safe. Drawing a parallel between the two types of games, defined by Huizinga, and morality we could say that paiedia would be the equivalent of the personal
5 6 7

Nietzche, Friedrich , On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense , p 6 Huizinga, Johan, Homo Ludens , p 22 Huizinga, Johan, Homo Ludens, p 45

moral code , a code that is unrestrictive by nature, as it consists of rules that the individual would not want to overpass and it is only used by people that choose their anima, neglecting therefore their persona, in other words by people that have obtained happiness. On the other hand, ludens would be the equivalent of the collective moral code, a restrictive and oppressive code, not by fault but by nature , a code chosen by those that prefer their social mask ( persona) to their true self ( anima) , and are, therefore unhappy. Bringing my argumentation to a more concrete level, I would like to discuss the issue of terrorism and whether it can or can not be morally justified. On approach of morally justifying terrorism would be based on the utilitarianism concept of the greater good. I would like to establish if there is a moral justification in terrorism and whether it is related to happiness , based on my hypothesis: true happiness is only possible when accepting your inner guidelines and no other guidelines of any kind. I will not argue that terrorists are indoctrinated and manipulated into thinking that an attack is the only solution for saving their country, their families, for protecting their religion or their beliefs.8 From one point of view this may be perceived as a collective set of rules, an exterior guideline on how to live ones life. I would argue that even though the starting code of his moral code may be a collective one, each kamikaze terrorist , once he decides to be part of an attack, transforms this whole code into a personal one, assimilating, converting each rule so that it fits his or hers personal needs and wants.9 National goals are maybe transformed into personal ones , and the rules arent imposed, they become something unavoidable and that doesnt need to be avoided, something the individual doesnt want to avoid. This is why I think that a kamikaze terrorist think greatly about his deeds, sees himself as a hero and not a villain , even though the whole world deems him as truly immoral. This difference of perception is caused by the relativity of morality and by the fact that a kamikaze terrorist leaves his life guided by his personal moral code, a choices that ensures him that his death wont be in vain, a choice that brings him happiness in the last moments of his life.

8 9

Javed Ahmad Gavidi, Morals and Morality , p 37 Victoroff, Jeff, The Mind of the Terrorist: A Review and Critique of Psychological Approaches , p 21

Anything is relative in life, the truth and the lie are just different perceptions of the same fact. Imposing a social conduct is enough to create a barrier between your true self and your social mask , thus preventing you from happiness. Personal moral values can derive from indoctrination and manipulation and the thought of self sacrifice can bring true happiness. These are all examples that there is no such thng as a fix notion of morality or a fix notion of happiness , this are all relative and depend only on our own emotions and needs, on our foundations and our culture , on our personality and character. Therefore,when one is pursuing happiness it is useless to search for moral rules, it is useless to try to obey a certain moral code, because true happiness shall only be found when following your inner guidelines and no other guidelines of any sort.

REFERENCES

Huizinga, Johan, Homo Ludens Javed Ahmad Gavidi, Morals and Morality , Victoroff, Jeff, The Mind of the Terrorist: A Review and Critique of Psychological Approaches

Nietzche, Friedrich , On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense Hume, David , Of Virtue and Vice in General

Hobbes, Thomas Of the Natural Condition of Mankind, as concerning their Felicity and Misery