The Happiness of Others :: Happiness Essays

Written by Dr. Sam VakninIs there any needful connection between our operations and the happiness of others? Disregarding for a moment the fogginess of the definitions of actions in philosophical literature - two types of answers were hitherto provided. Sentient Beings (referred to, in this essay, as Humans or persons) seem either to limit separately other - or to enhance each others actions. Mutual limitation is, for instance, discernible in game theory. It deals with decision exits when all the rational players be fully aw atomic number 18 of both the outcomes of their actions and of what they prefer these outcomes to be. They are also fully communicate about the other players they know that they are rational, too, for instance. This, of course, is a very farfetched idealization. A state of unbounded information is nowhere and never to be found. Still, in most cases, the players settle down to one of the Nash equilibria solutions. Their actions are laboured by the existe nce of the others. The Hidden Hand of Adam Smith (which, among other things, benignly and optimally regulates the market and the price mechanisms) - is also a in return limiting model. Numerous single participants strive 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(prenominal) the consequentialist theories of ethics deal with mutual enhancement. This is especially true of the Utilitarian variety. Acts (whether judged separately or in conformity to a set of rules) are moral, if their outcome increases utility (also known as happiness or pleasure). They are chastely obligatory if they maximize utility and no alternative course of action can do so. Other versions talk about an increase in utility rather than its maximization. Still, the principle is simple for an act to be judged moral, ethical, virtuous, or good - it must influence others in a way which pull up stakes enhance and increase their happiness. The flaws in all the above answers are unornamented and have been explored at length in the literature. The assumptions are dubious (fully assured participants, rationality in decision making and in prioritizing the outcomes, etc.). All the answers are instrumental and quantitative they strive to offer a moral measurement rod. An increase entails the measurement of two states before and after the act. Moreover, it demands full acquaintance of the world and a type of knowledge so intimate, so confidential - that it is not even sure that the players themselves have conscious access to it.