Notes for a debate on July 24th, 2010.
By Professor George F. Hart with contributions by Bill Ross
Any discussion of the purpose of life by a western scientist must include the views of Ayn Rand [1905-1982] and how purpose, group and individual rights, and capitalism impact upon the question. Anne Rand is a persistent character in the lives of Laissez Faire capitalists. She was a Russian philosopher, writer, novelist who wrote “Atlas Shrugged” and developed the hypothesis of objectivism. Her relevance is the important influences she had on capitalistic theoreticians. In her hypothesis of objectivism she expounds:
- Reality exists independent of consciousness.
- Individual persons are in contact with this reality through sensory perception.
- human beings can gain objective knowledge from perception though the process of concept formation and inductive and deductive logic.
- The proper purpose of one’s life is the pursuit of one’s own rational self-interest
- The only social system consistent with this moral happiness is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure Laissez Faire Capitalism.
Until recently it was only the last statement I disagreed with, because my world-experience indicated that other economic systems besides capitalism promote individual rights, and allow people to live together within a peaceable social gamodeme. That satisfying one’s own self-interest made a person happy, and this personal happiness was the purpose of life, was logical and acceptable to my personable id. However, upon reflection I realize that I have been happy only very few times in my entire life. Some of these occasions I remember well: when I was married, when each of my three sons was born, when I realized that my grand-daughter would live. Most of the other good occasions were times of satisfaction not happiness: when I was the first student ever to achieve a particular academic standard at Darlington Grammar School, when my wife and I got our first car, when I successfully completed a 350 mile walk up the Wild Coast of South Africa with Patsy-Anne Phillips. [I love the heart-felt, intimate sharing. Rare amongst humans].With the wisdom that comes with experience I now know that these periods of happiness and satisfaction were self-reinforcing. Self-reinforcing behaviour can arise from the accumulation of experiences and alter future decisions: they affect how I will personally react with reality in the future. Happiness and satisfaction have little to do with the purpose of life and can have evil consequences. Hitler was happy at learning that France had capitulated and set in motion the elimination of more Jewish people [he did not dance a jig as reported – that was a looped movie giving the impression of a jig!]. Is a man allowed to use his strength to bring personal happiness by brutality? The hungry man is free to pursue food but is he allowed to steal and kill if he and his family are destitute and without food. Many would steal and kill for the happiness that food can bring to a starving family. Government regulates to curtail this sort of happiness so that the strong only use their strength in actions that do not intrude upon someone else’s individual rights: the golden rule of the social gamodeme. For a moral person – a person socialized to societal norms – happiness must be achieved without hurting or intruding on others ... but what of the conflict between belief systems. The religious fanatic seeks happiness in perpetuating his belief, in expanding it until it encompasses or eliminates all within its potential grasp by the sword if necessary …. all for the happiness of the mythical concept of heaven; and, in some groups, having sex with a bunch of virgins. Is contentment the quest for a society in which different racial groups are physically separated and one is the inferior to the other as with apartheid? Good points, but again for this discussion I would ask that we define the ‘purpose of life’ for persons living within the social norms of his or her society. As morality and social norms can be relative, achieving a purposeful life can vary significantly by society. But I will refer to Joseph Cambell once again where he insists that ‘happiness’ is achieved by living and archetypical life. In other words you can define happiness – or deep satisfaction – as a man if you: prove your courage [rights of passage] to other men, contribute to your community e.g. help kill a buffalo – here you can prove your courage and contribute in one hunt., love a woman, and be loved figuratively and literally, bear or sire children and …deal with the devastating angst of an unexplained cosmos i.e. adopt a spiritual paradigm. I recall my finest moments of happiness when I’ve navigated the perilous straits of life and come out the other side with successes in these archetypal areas. The dramatic successes are best remembered but are tempered by painful memories of battles lost, expectations sashed and inexplicable bouts of disillusionment – the loss of life’s spark. The milieu of life’s highs and lows is romanticized in literature and popular culture and it’s how we ‘process’ our pasts to ‘make the most ‘ of our history. The low times are not so romantic while we’re living through them. The self-reinforcing affects of successes carry you through the tough times and give you the courage to try again. We’re lost when we loose that life-force called confidence. We have all lost and regained it a few times.
The liberal institutional democracies [LID's] have a superimposed economic system on the political system, the purpose being to provide a fair distribution of resources so that individuals can pursue their individual quest for happiness. “The role of the government is strictly limited to the enforcement of an individuals right to his own life, liberty and the pursuit of his / her own happiness”. What about sharing, caring and the better well-being of all people? Is the happiness and contentment of the group more important than that of the individual? Whereas, people have an individual right to work for a successful life, they do not have a right to abuse this individual right by becoming increasingly obsessed with power or profit. I am an elitist and believe elitism is an admirable humanity trait in that it recognises that some are better than others in some or many aspects of their ability. However, elitism which fails to include the general good and uses ability to influence and control the lives of others in ways that are not advantageous for the overall cultural gamodeme are not pursuant of the purpose of life. It can lead to sorrow for other people: to the development of an underclass of working poor alienated from happiness, to greed, crime and corruption. So what is the purpose of life? We agree that an elitist, pursuing happiness without regard for his fellow human beings is a dark individual, indeed. Most societies ostracise such individuals and stab them with the label ‘selfish’ or ‘hedonist’. Again, if society can successfully socialize their citizens to regard helping others or contributing to society as a good thing, then in their pursuit of happiness they will feel compelled – either innately as Cambell implies – or via social indoctrination to include a social contribution as part of the formula for happiness. This is the paradox of the ‘pursuit of happiness’. It is always interpreted to mean happiness to the exclusion of others, whereas properly socialized individuals will view such a pursuit as a shallow, ultimately empty endeavour. In effect, a properly socialized citizen puts tremendous value in receiving an acknowledgement that they have contributed to society. An interesting question is where or not this is innate [part of the human archetypal essence] or an invention of social evolution?
Historically western liberalism is rooted in a faith in human freedom and Locke’s trinity of natural rights: the right to life, liberty, and property. These rights can provide happiness and contentment but are they connected with the purpose of life? The Declaration of Independence asserts that “men are created equal”; but this is equality only of opportunity, the right for a person to go as far as effort and ability will carry: the right to a meritorious system of political and economic thought. Equality is not equated with the idea that everyone should go equally far, handicapping the elite and the more capable and industrious, and allowing an unlimited support by the State for those who are less successful. The American Constitution does not allow for the elitist to be pillaged to support those of lesser wealth or position. It is the concept of “the purpose of life as individual usefulness” where the quality of a support for the less able or less successful comes from not from the pursuit of happiness.
The 18th century idea of charity generally carried the stigma of inferiority by both the giver and the receiver. We can replace the concept of charity by that of purposeful usefulness. To be relevant is to be counted, to be useful. John Adams expressed it well.
“There is a voice within us, which seems to intimate that real merit should govern the world, and that men ought to be respected only in proportion to their talents, virtues and services… Few men will deny that there is a natural aristocracy of virtues and talents in every nation and every party, in every city and village”.
Jefferson’s agreement with this view is expressed in a letter to Adams from Monticello, dated October 28, 1813.
“I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents… The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature, for the instruction, the trusts and government of society. And indeed it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society”.
The people of the United States of America, more than any other country I know, share the common attribute amongst many of it’s people of helpfulness. We Americans do help one another – it is one of our greatest strengths. It is easy to say that this attribute makes us happy but it is more than that, much more. It is part of the individuality of our nation that helping others – being useful to others – is something we do. It is one of the purposes of many of us: I claim it is the main purpose and it is a purpose that can bring happiness to both the giver and the receiver. Is this character trait disproportionately linked to Americans?
Like Agassiz, in my own life I had no time to become wealthy but choose another route through life. I have helped others to become wealthy and some of those have found happiness, not so much in the accumulation of riches and power, but in providing help to others: their purpose of life became to be accountable, to be useful to humankind. Their life experience developed a personal morality that recognises the use they could be to society.
COMMENTS.
Comment: 01-dw
The issue produces many questions and, for me, no conclusions.
First, I suspect most people think that happiness is a state that is different than the dictionary definition. I think that we perceive happiness as a state of exhilaration which can be sustained for a long period of time.
If one were able to determine whether we should live a happy or useful life it still leaves the question: so what? And how do you measure such things. How do you determine if someone is happy. Do you go by their description and is that description for the moment, the past day or so, last week, last year? What is the period of time used for measuring happiness or, do you consider what you know or perceive of that person in addition to what they say to determine if they are happy? When you learned that your grand-daughter would live, was that happiness or extreme relief and great pleasure that all had worked out. How long must an emotion last for us to say it is how we are generally. What level of emotion must be attained before it can be declared the true emotion? Can you be happy yet vicious in your business practices. Is it legitimate if one is happy after repossessing their house from a family that could not afford the rent because they lost their job. Can one say they are happy yet be very dissatisfied with their partner or boss.
And what exactly does useful mean? Helping an old lady across the street? Fighting against the war? Fighting in the war? If fighting in the war is useful then does that mean that fighting against the war is not? Is one useful if they go to work each day but do nothing else toward the betterment of society?
Why must the debate be based on an either/or proposition? If I have felt happy at times but those times are insignificant in relation to the times I am content, discontented, angry, upset, depressed, fearful, uncertain or just neutral am I happy or something else?
Is it useful to give a penny to a homeless person seeking help or must one give a greater amount to be truly useful? And what if you give nothing in hope of forcing the government to recognise a serious social problem and do something about it? Is the latter a useful act though the beggar may suffer?
If we execute someone who has killed, is that a useful act or should we, as a society, have done something much earlier for that individual in hope of preventing such an act thereby being really useful?
And what combination of the two would be acceptable: 20% happy, 80% useful? fifty-fifty? and on and on and on.
What’s the purpose of the debate? To resolve a very difficult issue, to wonder about something that has no resolution or is it mental masturbation?
?Great questions and musings…. My own view of happiness on a yearly, monthly, daily basis is evolved greatly over my lifetime. I used to think of happiness in dictionary terms (i.e, the joy of riding a roller coaster, the belly laughs between good friends over a drink), but now I have a much longer view. I want to be happy. Why not? I choose to try to be happier over time. I study what makes me happy and try to increase those activities and thoughts. I see extreme happiness highs as rare, but delicious and I work toward achieving them over fairly long periods of time. If I have an idea for something and work toward achieving it (mostly at work) I achieve some level of anticipatory happiness every day I feel I make progress toward that goal. I become ‘in love’ with the idea. The downside, is that if, on any given day there is either no progress or the dream is in jeopardy of dying, then I become more or less depressed. This makes goal-setting sort of a high-stakes activity for me. I set myself up for an extreme high or a bad fall.
I tell myself that I’m ‘saving up’ a series of highs that I can put in the proverbial memory bank so that over a lifetime I can feel the warm glow of those peak moments.
This is my simple plan…. Sometimes I think its working because I really do achieve many of my goals. I may be deluding myself though because in the middle times between my highs I’m often not ‘living in the moment’. Time is passing and I’m living in some future state of anticipation. It doesn’t always work for me either. I sometimes simply, intolerably and inexplicably lose my ‘spark’, my inspiration to achieve and I can go a few days trying to regain that ‘reason to strive’. That’s when I usually tell myself I’m working too hard, begin looking for distractions, play more tennis, get together with friends, take long walks, etc. But these episodes reinforce the ineffable mysteries of life and the perils of trying to live life on a plan (note my romantized explanation… very satisfying).
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Comment: 02-fl
Mill’s “Utilitarianism” should be read e.g. “On the present occasion, I shall, without further discussion of the other theories, attempt to contribute something towards the understanding and appreciation of the Utilitarian or Happiness theory, and towards such proof as it is susceptible of those who know anything about the matter are aware that every writer, from Epicurus to Bentham, who maintained the theory of utility, meant by it, not something to be contra-distinguished from pleasure, but pleasure itself, together with exemption from pain”. When most philosophers talk about “happiness” what they really mean is something very like your definition- usefulness or utility. That doesn’t mean that we can’t have a good discussion about the topic. but we have to be exceedingly careful in the terms we use. We can’t casually say that happiness and usefulness are opposed. The more I think about it, the more I like using Mill as a touchstone: the big sticking point about utilitarianism, grossly stated as “the greatest good for the greatest number”, is why should you or I care more about the greatest good for the greatest number than we care about the greatest good for our family? Our greatest “happiness” comes from their good, not the world’s good. Right or not right? Mill’s utilitarianism is a good reading and can direct focus on some critical topics.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Comment: 03-am
I agree with your conclusions in the last two paragraphs.
Yes, helping others is a fine purpose for us. As you said, it brings happiness to both giver and receiver. But it conflicts with Ayn Rand’s tenet of pursuing one’s own rational self-interest. I’ve always had this problem with Objectivism. To me, the the whole ‘looking out for #1′ vibe taints the rest of Objectivism.
Mostly, her other observations make sense to me — reality exists separately from consciousness and our perceptions can lead to objective knowledge of reality via logic, blah blah. That’s all very Spockian (Mr., not Dr.), and appeals to my scientist core.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Comment 04 – ss
In what you have compiled already you do touch upon a very simple premise that comes from Jewish philosophy, which is that you will not find happiness in life unless you first find a way to be useful. Thus, in that sense, there is no debate to be had. The purpose of life is to be useful but, by being useful, you will find happiness as a result.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………