Is acting Morally Necessary For Happiness
By Gina Baker <Daphine10@hotmail.com>
Is Acting Morally Necessary For Happiness?
Is Acting Morally Necessary For Happiness? No, it is not necessary to act morally to be happy. In this paper, I am assuming that happiness and pleasure are the same thing. Some people might argue with this statement, by saying that you can think that you are experiencing pleasure but in all actuality you are not. For example, if someone went to see a psychiatrist and mentioned in their therapy session that they experienced pleasure by sitting on their bed and shredding paper, then the psychiatrist might say that you only think that you are feeling pleasure, but really you are not. Even though in my belief I think that you are the only one who knows whether or not you are experiencing pleasure.
Everyday of most everyone's lives we experience pleasure from some immoral act. People smoke when they know that they are harming themselves and not to mention the others around them. That gives some people a certain sense of pleasure. But then you can take this idea to a whole new level. Jeremy Bentham who was considered to be the father of criminology said that people commit criminal acts in order to gain the pleasure from them. Which is true; people commit heinous crimes everyday just because it makes them happy. For some reason they get a high off of it. For example, in Pee Wee Gaskin's biography, he said that it made him excited and happy to rape, sodomize, and kill people. The last time I checked, all of those are considered to be immoral acts, in the eyes of God and in the eyes of the law. Bank robbers rob banks because money makes them happy. The Zodiac killer killed over 30 people and he would write letters to the police taunting them and telling them how it made him happy to see the scared look in the victims eyes right before he killed them. The power made him happy. You might say, that is not true happiness, but what true happiness is to you, does not feel the same to everyone else. So how can you say that the individual is not experiencing true happiness? And how can you say that you have to act morally to be happy? Because, some people could really care less whether or not we think that they are acting morally or not.
To submit a comment, click here.
jennifer lester <lesterjennifer@hotmail.com>excellent paper. good point touching upon gaskin and the zodiac killer.
Amy Young <bbfhyoung@yahoo.com>I thought that you answered the question thoroughly. I liked how your examples spanned the mundane smoker to the mass murderer and all pertained to the proving of your point. I agree with your answer to this question. Good paper.
Chun Yeung <jane1227@yahoo.com>I really like your paper. You gave us many good examples, and made good points. :)
Lee Archie <larchie@philosophy.lander.edu>I wonder whether you would consider that your paper might be a good reductio ad absurdum proving that pleasure and happiness are different states of being.
Brian W. Bearden <bbearden@student.lander.edu>Good paper, you supported your opinion well.
Matthew Knight <mknight_dsb@hotmail.com>Very well written! You supported yourself well with your examples.
Michael T Tucker <tuckerm@greenwood.net>Nice job on your paper.
Tom Lundis <Kman26@hotmail.com>Very nice paper, though I would have to disagree about mass murderers being happy. In fact the are never truly happy, because they must continually do these things to maintain their "pleasure." I think of happiness as something more lasting than a simple pleasure. But still a very well-argued point of view.
Jamie Meadows <riojeepgrl@yahoo.com>Great Paper!!! I totally agree with you in that we (ourselves) are the only ones who know if we are experiencing pleasure or not.
Jamie Meadows <riojeepgrl@yahoo.com>Great Paper!!! I totally agree with you in that we (ourselves) are the only ones who know if we are experiencing pleasure or not.
Rachel Crowe <rcrowe@usa.net>If you are assuming happiness and pleasure are the same, then I agree with you. I don't think they are, though. In the end, I don't believe robbers and killers are really happy.
Leah <coco_c_007@hotmail.com>While your paper brings out several relevant points, something about it (and to be quite honest, I don't know what it is) struck me as a bit off. That isn't to say that your paper wasn't good, because it is. But I can't shake the feeling that some fundamental principle is being overlooked.
The mention that you made of bank robbers robbing because money made them happy -- that's almost always never the case. Having had extensive contact with the Alabama Department of Corrections through my mother, I can vouch for the fact that, when asked why they committed the robbery, most bank robbers say that they desperately needed the money and felt that the only avenue left open to them was robbery.
Tim Andrews <tandrews@emeraldis.com>I understand where you're coming from, but acting immorally doesn't necessarily mean breaking the law in every case.
Demetri Andrews <dandrews92@hotmail.com>Well Put.
Nichole Sanders <snk79@hotmail.com>I believe and support your paper totally!!! I feel the exact same way. How can another person tell someone else what they are feeling!
Nichole Sanders <snk79@hotmail.com>I believe and support your paper totally!!! I feel the exact same way. How can another person tell someone else what they are feeling!
Russell L. Martin <rangjung21@hotmail.com>Good point. I think the view you take of happiness is backed up well in your paper
Michelle Komski <michellekomski@hotmail.com>I agree with your position and think you did a wonderful job explaining yourself. I enjoyed your references to serial killers to further explain your position.
Due Date <2/28/2000>Formal comments completed
Anna C. Nance <eirendel@yahoo.com>I think that if immoral acts make one happy, then that is a false happiness, like shredding paper is a false pleasure.