Metaphysics

They say time does not last, but a memory will. Unfortunately, a memory does not always serve the positive requirements that we burden upon it. My memories serve only to haunt me of who I once was, and who I never will be. Home videos are the only trace left of the happy extrovert I once had known myself to be. In particular, one can see a skinny, blond-haired child dancing on the streets of Disney World and striking poses, like a runway model, for the passing strangers. I wanted to be noticed, for everyone to look at me, as I smiled and leaped off and on the curb of the sidewalk. Those days did not last.

When did I change? That question can never be answered. It has been so long since I have been able to remember being that happy child. Somewhere in middle school, a new identity arose within me. I became fragile to other peoples words. I was constantly on guard against the limitations and criticisms from people I once considered to be my friends. They were a horrible group of friends; the type that could condemn you for life just for wearing generic brand shirt, and not Gap.

Each morning I would wake up with the prospect of a new opportunity for happiness among my friends. Each day my hopes were shattered as I walked into the classroom, and with just one glance, shock myself back into reality. My stomach churned with anxiousness as the racing of my heart caused my head to become dizzy. I wanted to flee from the unbearable torture that awaited me and hide like a groundhog for all winter; unlike a groundhog whose only job is to sleep, I had to be in school. It was in this grou!

p of people I associated with that I lost my sense of self, my independence, and my childhood.

The torture did not stop there. The guys I chose to give my heart to, in hopes of restoring faith that someone could care for me, returned the favor with nothing more than empty words and absent appearances. I would share more about the pain I suffered from these men, but so much of what happened I have blocked out. All I recall are the feelings left over. No one but a fourteen year old girl understands the profound affects of what heartache can do on ones self-esteem.

It could have been a compilation of my past experiences or maybe a trace from my mothers side of the family, but I soon went into a state of solitude and depression. Regardless, the dismal feelings that generated inside me and the empty thoughts that festered in my mind ate away at my existence. I was slowly disappearing within myself and I felt as though there was nothing pulling me back. I felt utterly alone. My whole life I devoted myself to others just to be let down.

Now, there was no one left to turn to. It seemed like there really was not a purpose for me to live for all I ever endured was pain and suffering. I wanted to talk to people, anyone, about it, but no one was interested in hearing my problems. I certainly did not have friends I could open up to because they were all too preoccupied with their pathetic problems, like which boy to date. And I certainly could not turn to my parents because at that point in my life, like every teenager, I was revolting against t!

hem. All that was left was for me to drown myself in my misery to the point of suffocation. Fortunately, my sophomore year of high school I was introduced to a new style of literature, which reassured me that my life was not unnatural or disorderly. My teachers referred to these books as coming of age stories which eloquently captured the thoughts and incidents of adolescent girls struggling with life. I found myself skimming through the text with anticipation of learning more about the tribulations other girls, like me, went through. For the first time in my life I felt normal, sane. No one around me was available to understood my thoughts, but here on paper, a fictitious character was describing every emotion that passed through my timid body.

The one piece of literature in particular that changed my life immensely is House on Mango Street, by Sandra Cisneros. Through small vignettes, she poetically narrates the hardships a young girl, by the name of Esperanza, endures growing up in a Latin community. This powerful book is about Esperanzas storyof a young girl coming into her power, and inventing for herself what she will become. The words spoke to me like an epiphany; not only could I empathize with Esperanza, but the use of poetic language Cisneros uses captures the essence of the tone of the story beautifully.

By the time I was finished the book, a stir of questions twirled through my mind like a cloud of dust picked up by a high wind. I wondered what my purpose in life was? Why did I endure so much pain? Why couldnt I just be happy? The thoughts began to sensor my sense of reality and I could no longer focus on anything.

I needed an escape from the black whole of emptiness that lived in my chest. I could actually feel the whole as it inhabited my body. I could feel the emptiness penetrate my heart so that I no longer was allowed to feel. I was just numb. Afraid of what my thoughts would do to me, I knew I had to get rid of them, quickly. I needed to release them from me like a demon caught in my soul.

I recalled some of the last words Esperanza said in the book, I put it down on paper and then the ghost does not ache so much. I write it down and Mango says goodbye sometimes. She does not hold me in her arms. She sets me free. It then was clear to me that there was a way to cope with my pain. So, I picked up my nearest Bic pen and scrambled for a piece of scrap paper from my cluttered desk drawer, and began to write. The words flowed faster from my hand than they could leave my lips as I read out loud. Colors, shapes and designs all appeared on my paper as I began to paint with words the dis!

aster I called my mind. I pressed lightly at first, careful how I wrote each letter. Eventually my emotions took over my fingers and my letters became thick and hard. Hurt. Pain. Suffering. Torture. Empty. Depressed. Miserable. Nothingness. My handwriting was barely legible but the words kept on pouring out. There was a tidal wave of thoughts stuck on this paper.

The release. It ended abruptly, like a final climax. I left the pen on the paper and stared out the window toward the world of normal people who had no idea what I just went through. No longer was I alone. No longer could I be afraid of my thoughts. I finally discovered a way to lift them from within and release them to the cruel world. They were safe now, on paper, out of my head, away from me.

My body relaxed. My fingers slowly unclenched from the curled up position they were forced into to hold the pen. With a deep breath I could feel the calm swim through my veins. There was a slight breeze which tickled my neck and for the first time I was able to enjoy something external. I let the breeze pass by me and realized it had been so long since I had let the little things make me happy. For now on my thoughts could no longer posses my mind for I could liberate them onto paper. No longer would the ghost ache so much. I write it down and the pain says goodbye sometimes. It does!

When it comes down to both a novel and a film, the general consensus is that the novel is more effective and is filled with great detail in which captures the reader’s attention. Many people have the mindset that they have the opportunity to simply wait and enjoy the film rather than taking the time to read the novel in relation to the film. Kazuo Ishiguro’s novel, Never Let Me Go, illustrates a mixture of devastation, innocence, knowledge, and loss in much greater detail than the film itself. To begin, a character is an individual in a novel, movie, or a play. Unfortunately, while one is in deep imagination throughout a novel, they visualize images of specific characters in which has no correlation to what is portrayed in the film. For instance, when one is reading a novel, it is as if they are visualizing scene by scene in their minds, picturing the character’s image and settings of their own.

By coming to the realization and identifying these key differences in a character between the novel and the film, it is best to focus on one specific character and pay attention as much as possible to catch the differences that are thrown at you. For example, in both the novel and film, I focused my full attention into one character. Her name was Ruth. Throughout the novel, it portrayed the sense that sometimes Ruth was so nice that one may want to reach through the page to give her a hug. But the majority of the time, one would in actuality want to strangle her to death, because she can be very discourteous and ill—mannered Her best friend, Kathy,notices also, and even makes mention of it by asserting “I had this notion there were two quite separate Ruth’s”.

Perhaps, it’s moments when Ruth goes out of her way to help find Kathy’s prized possession, her Judy Bridgewater tape,that she misplaced by accident (Ishiguro, 74775), or all of the times that Ruth was down for late night snickering and personal conversations with Kathy, that she expressed herself as the selfless and kind-hearted friend she was able to be when she chose to. On the flip side, Ruth had this very selfish and bossy side of her in which took part throughout most of the novel. She is nothing but a handful of drama and constantly bossing everybody around. She is the type of person that always has to have the upper hand, and is more interested in being cool and half-hearted rather than taking the time to be nice and polite to the people around her. The scene that cattght my attention the most that portrayed this specific side of Ruth, happens to be the part where she belittled Kathy by letting her know loud and clear that even if she and Tommy were to split, Kathy needed to realize that “Tommy didn‘t see her that way, as a proper girlfriend”.

With this being said in a very harsh and demanding tone, Kathy just brushed it off and acted as if she completely understood and showed no signs of hurt or sadness towards Ruth. Another scene that revealed the selfish side of Ruth is the argument her, Tommy, and Kathy had while at the Cottages involving Tommy‘s theory of the Gallery Ruth brings up “Tommy’s big Gallery theory“ and her aggravation kicks in from the thought of her knowing nothing of it, but Kathy being aware of it all along Ruth informs Tommy that his art isn’t of much worth in which she hopes that he’s creating these animals as a joke and not being serious about them. Shortly, Ruth blurts out that even Kathy finds his animals a complete hoot. As unpleased as Ruth is, she throws Kathy under the bus and takes words out of her mouth that were never spoken of. As Ruth became a donor, she simply lets go of the past and was hopeful for a brighter future for her friends, Tommy and Kathy.

By doing this, she lets loose and apologizes to Kathy for everything she has done to intentionally hurt her and for reasons as to why she kept “Tommy and Kathy apart all those years” As a great deed, Ruth was proactive and got Madame’s address and told them both to go find it and get the deferral in which they both wholeheartedly deserved In contrast, the film didn’t reveal the exaggerated rudeness in which the novel brought Ruth out to be. Throughout the majority of the film, Ruth seemed to have been fairly tranquil and caring towards Kathy, rather than constantly inquiring about drama and making selfish comments and rude gestures. However, there was a similarity within the novel and the film based upon Ruth’s attitude and selfishness. This appeared in the scene when she informed Kathy that she was not to be with Tommy if they ever split and that he didn’t like her as that of a proper girlfriend anyways.

She enunciated all of this with a very stern facial expression and a bitter tone in both the novel and film. The rest of the film depicted Ruth’s personality and character as though she was a complete different person apart from the noveL Furthermore when differentiating between a novel and a film, most individuals would simply state the obvious by suggesting that writers use words and film-makers use pictures or in a novel a scene is in description, but depicted in a film. Although these assumptions are correct, if looked into it in depth, you will realize that the general plot of the novel and the film have many scenes in which ideas and situations are adjusted for reasons we may never understand. In the midst of reading Never Let Me Go, and watching it, a variety of scenes took on both similarities and differences. In the novel, for example, Kathy’s most prized possession was her cassette tape (preferably track number 3 “Never Let Me Go”).

She took really good care of it, until it went missing, coincidentally after Madame caught her swaying back and forth to the song pretending to hold a baby in her arms (Ishiguro, 71). It was then brought back to her remembrance when Tommy offered to help find it for her on their trip to locate Ruth’s possible Kathy ended up finding herself in a local thrift store and was very grateful to have found an exact copy of the taper. Whereas, in the film, the cassette tape was mentioned once as in the novel, but it was Ruth who caught her in the moment rather than Madame. Even more, the cassette tape never went missing in the film and there was no searching around for it on the trip as Tommy and Kathy seeked [0 find for the longest time. Another scene in which caught my attention was when Ruth apologized to Kathy and gave her Madame’s address that she searched long and hard for, for her and Tommy to go try and receive a deferral after becoming his carer.

In the novel, the apology took place in the car, stopped on the side of the road while observing a poster ad (Ishiguro, 228- 229). She apologized for the multiple things she intended to, and carried on with telling Kathy to become Tommy’s carer, and following that, going to attempt to receive a deferral from Madame. Keep in mind, Ruth completed after her second donation before Kathy even became Tommy’s carer. In the film, the three amigos as I like to call to them, went on a scavenger hunt to observe a stranded boat (Ishiguro, 216). This boat holds a metaphorical meaning in which shows how their lives unfold, symbolizing the clones and the story of Hailsham versus their inevitable future. At this point in the film, Ruth makes amends and apologizes just as she did in the novel. What surprised me the most was that Ruth had not yet completed before Kathy became Tommy‘s carer, which has to take on an uncomfortable feeling within Kathy.

As one can see, novels and films hold a great variety of differences. It’s as if one know’s what makes the story worthy, so when information is missing, it produces discouragement amongst the audience. In conclusion, the novel, Never Let Me Go, puts forth more effectiveness rather than the film because it contains a bulk of detail. The novel helps one come to know characters best through what they are thinking and what is said about them and goes into depth for the reasons behind the scenes that take place. Watching a film after reading the novel tends to change ones perspective from one route to another. Ruth is illustrated differently within the two versions. The novel describes and represents her as a bossy little brat that always has to be the center of attention, whereas the film contradicts this description by representing her as more of an occasionally rude individual, but mostly a more calm and less bossy little girl. Furthermore, Ruth is better depicted by reading the novel, as opposed to watching the film.

Suffering is the default state of human existence, to exist is to suffer and it is unavoidable. Fortunately, there are times where we will not suffer, also known as happiness. So, how does one maximize happiness? Many theories have been suggested on how to maximize happiness, and I believe the theory closest to the truth would be Siddhārtha Gautama’s belief, also known as Buddha, who believed that in order to be happy, one had to live in the moment.

He was a man born into luxury and royalty, but he left that life because he did not believe material possessions was life’s end goal. He concluded that one should limit their Earthly desires because that can bring on past regret or anticipations on an uncertain future. Suffering is inevitable, but if we live in the moment it is possible to be truly happy.

“Stop and take a deep breath,” words that my father told me when I was eight or nine that still echo in my head till this day. The reason why I was upset back then was silly, but the message my father sent me was very important, every once in awhile you need to take a step back and enjoy the moment. In recent years, people seem to be more and more attached to their phones, computers, and other forms of instant communication and gratification.

Unfortunately, while instant communication is a good thing, dependence upon it can take us away from the scenery and decrease our happiness. Last year when I was vacationing in Honolulu, around the Kaaawa beach area, and a younger girl around her early teens was complaining to her father about the lack of cell service. While I too am guilty of using my phone in beautiful places, it can bring unnecessary desires such as the need to post a snapchat every hour, which in turn can lead to unhappiness if internet connection is lost. If she took a step back and saw how fortunate she was to be in Hawaii, she might have been happier.

A prevalent theory that pertains to happiness would be the idea that a partner is needed in the equation of happiness. I believe that this theory is far from the truth. Christopher McCandless, in the movie Into the Wild directed by Sean Penn, is about a young adult who sets off on an adventure to find out what life is about. While I do agree with the movies message on finding yourself and enjoying nature, I do not believe that happiness exists only when shared. It is true that we are naturally a species that flourishes because we live in communities, but that is not essential to happiness.

Christopher Knight, a hermit who lived in isolation for 27 years, said it the best, “If you like solitude, you are never alone,” we do not need other beings if we truly do not want to be with anyone else (Finkel 1). To live in isolation is a difficult, and Knight admits it is difficult to live on your own because you become the sole provider of your every need. But, Knight felt complete, “He was attuned to the completeness of his own presence rather than to the absence of others” (Finkel 1). Knight was able to fulfill his basic human desires and ridded himself of the extras, non-essential for survival, and was able to feel complete – happy.

Another prevalent theory would be the idea that one can only experience happiness when life is complete. Philosophers such as Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas believe that it is only at the end of life, or post life, when one could truly experience happiness. I believe that these theories are incorrect simply because our brain is wired to experience pleasure, dopamine is released whenever our brain believes we deserve an award.

Runner’s High, the feeling of euphoria while running, is an example of our ability to feel happy long before we are laying on our death beds. Sex and drugs are another example of our ability to feel happiness before our time is up. What both examples have in common is the mindset of being in the moment, which the person to feel happy.

In order to be happy we need to embrace the moment. Suffering is natural and when experiencing the harsh reality of life, it is good idea to look ahead and hope for the best. That being said, no one should focus all their time on the future because it is uncertain. Likewise, nothing lasts forever and one can not look back at the “good times” with the expectation for them to happen all over again. Fortunately, there will be times where we can experience happiness, and during these times one needs to take a step back and enjoy the moment.

Works Cited

• “Aristotle.” Pursuit of Happiness, 10 Sept. 2016, www.pursuit-of-happiness.org/history-of-happiness/aristotle/.
• “Buddha.” Pursuit of Happiness, 10 Sept. 2016, www.pursuit-of-happiness.org/history-of-happiness/buddha/.
• Finkel, Michael. “Into the Woods: How One Man Survived Alone in the Wilderness for 27 Years | Michael Finkel.” The Guardian,
• Guardian News and Media, 15 Mar. 2017, www.theguardian.com/news/2017/mar/15/stranger-in-the-woods-christopher-knight-hermit-maine.
• Penn, Sean, director. Into the Wild. Paramount Vantage, 2007.
  “Thomas Aquinas.” Pursuit of Happiness, 10 Sept. 2016, www.pursuit-of-happiness.org/history-of-happiness/thomas-aquinas/.

Every day we go about our lives, each of them different, each of them identifying with a sort of roller coaster of emotions, but all have the same goal. Everyone is looking for inner happiness. Some spend their whole life searching for happiness and others simply find it.

“

Happiness is a strong meaningful word that contains between it letters a lot of human’s way of life, disappointments and rejoicing.

”

(The Pursuit) Webster

’

s dictionary states that happiness is

“

a state of well-being and contentment.

” 

But it is actually much bigger than a simple dictionary definition. That

’

s why humans must never underestimate the power of intangible feeling. Is happiness found through an acceptance of what one already has? Or is it found through a search for more?

Happiness is achieved through the search for more. Naturally, humans are genetically driven to want more. More land, more money, more sex – history has proven this time and time again. Take for example shopping, which is sometimes referred to as retail therapy. There is an aspect to shopping that

’

s not therapeutic at all. Shopping for some does indeed provide comfort, but it also stimulates the desire to have things, and being in the state of desire isn

’

t always necessarily a comfortable place to be.

Naturally, we don’t desire what we already have in our possession. American companies and corporations tend to promote desire, and we as Americans tend to idealize desire, but desire is actually a condition of wanting and emptiness. Desire is restless, and when we desire it

’

s hard to focus on much else. 

In German neurologist Sigmund Freud

’

s

“

Beyond the Pleasure Principle,

”

Freud studies the idea of nirvana and concludes that the great calm that follows from no longer wanting can only be stopped by death itself. Freud states,

“

desire has an ulterior motive that lies well beyond acquisition, which is precisely the peacefulness of nirvana. What we desire when we desire is not climax and crescendo, but the relief to which they lead.

”

(Freud 104) If you translate that into shopping terms it is suggesting that our desire is not the objects that we buy, but the relief that comes from actually buying the things and no longer having to desire them.

This fact can also be compared to the common saying that if you’re doing what you love for a living that you

’

ll never work a day in your life. How can one be satisfied with what one has, is just a boing desk job? While a artist or architect who has a passion for creating things are always reaching for the next project, eager to move on to another piece they can be proud of, always searching to pursue  the thing that makes them the happiest.

Another reason that happiness is found through a search for more is because it

’

s the chase that

’

s the fun part. Some people just aren’t satisfied with sitting around. It

’

s the active search for an object or place of desire that provides happiness to the person. As the philosopher Souza said –

“

There is no way to happiness. Happiness is the way. So treasure every moment you have and remember that . Happiness is a journey, not a destination.

” 

The search for happiness is the greatest motivator of mankind. Without that motivator, our society would not be what it is today. It would be so different that it couldn’t possibly be imagined by anyone.

The importance of the pursuit of happiness is reiterated in the U.S Constitution.

“

We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness;

…”

The fact that this statement is in the constitution stresses how important the drive to be happy truly is for people. Not only is it important, but as American citizens, it is a God-given right.  

There are more than one types of happiness. Material happiness come from the possession of material objects, but emotional happiness strings from people or events that influence the way you feel about life. In order to achieve emotional happiness you have to go out and find these people, places, or events in order to make you feel the way you want to feel.

A

nd Material happiness is like the new iPhone coming out, once it does – your old iPhone becomes not good enough, and you’ve got to wait in line for seven hours at the Apple store to get the band new one – but either way to achieve either of these types of happiness you’ve got to have the pursuit of whatever

“

it

”

is.

Unfortunately, when happiness is our end goal and we approach it this way, it may lead to less happiness because the more we value happiness the more likely we are to expect happiness and to set higher happiness standards that are difficult to obtain. But humans crave challenges in life, and debatably thats what makes us human.

We have the ability and motivation to better ourselves and challenge ourselves and thats whats separates us from being animals. As author Sarah Fenerty said

“

There is no perfect recipe for attaining a state of happiness.

” 

But the pursuit of happiness is what drives us to keep going, even if things get tough. Happiness is found in a life journey through the search for more.

Works Cited

• “Declaration of Independence: Rough Draft.” Ushistory.org. Independence Hall Association, n.d.

  Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

• Fenerty, Sarah. “Happiness Is the Journey, Not the Destination.” The Daily Quirk. N.p., 28 Mar.

  2014. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.

• Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

• “Sigmund Freud. 1922. Beyond the Pleasure Principle.” Sigmund Freud. 1922. Beyond the

  Pleasure Principle. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

• “The Pursuit of Happiness.” The Pursuit of Happiness. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

Must a person be moral in order to obtain true happiness? The moral is the principles on which one’s judgments of right and wrong are based(Cite Wikipedia). In addition, is concerned with how people distinguish what behavior is right or wrong and what behavior is good or bad. Moral view with the different standards as personal like goals, norms, values, and beliefs from the moment people are born their conscience allows them to do whatever they want.

Also, happiness is a mental or emotional state of well-being which can be defined by, among others, positive or pleasant emotions ranging from contentment to intense joy (Cite Wikipedia).In addition, happiness is defined as having freedom, enjoying family, and being content in their life. According to many philosophers, morality does not include selfishness or making exceptions in one’s own favor just because it suits one to do so. In another word, morality cannot be necessary for true happiness.

First, that moral behavior is not necessary to be happy. For examples, there are many people who have not acted morally in the world and they are very happy in their lives. When people think or speak about morals people automatically think about right and wrong. In another word, is concerned with how people act in a good or bad way.

According to this two philosophies’ Mill said a person could do the right thing, and act morally while also having the desire to do the wrong thing. For example of a rescuer who saves another person from drowning. The person helps this person because it is morally right, regardless of being seen as a good Samaritan or if he would’ve been compensated for his actions.

Aristotle centers his moral theory on virtuous action and he said that virtue is necessary, but not sufficient for happiness. In another word, people need virtue to lead a happy life, but essentially, virtue alone will not make you happy. In another word to people be happy is not necessary to have morality.

Moral badness consists in doing everything for one’s own sake, moral goodness in acting for the sake of the noble, for the sake of others and without paying attention to one’s own interests. (Cite Aristotle’s theory Encyclopedia) in addition, moral behavior simply put is doing the right thing that will benefit others people and not you. This being said, what people see as the right thing to do is completely personal. For example, what you may see as right, might not seem right to another person all this depends on the person, of their personality, the way they were brought up, as well as how they think.

According to Plato “If there are no consequences to immoral behavior, then there is no motivational pressure for morality.”(Cite Plato Wikipedia). It can be viewed as the fact that if there were no consequences, there would be much more immoral behavior because it is simply easier to do.

To put it plainly there are many people out there who have acted immorally and yet are happy to this very day with their lives.
Second, Aristotle puts it right when he contends that happiness is something perfect and self-sufficient, being the end to which our actions are directed.-thus, he defines happiness as “an activity in accordance with virtue”(Cite Aristotle).

Evidently, it is inferred from this, that happiness presupposes a virtuous or a good way of living as its prerequisite. Happiness is something that one obtains over a lifetime of happy events and completed goals describing how people feel. It is a feeling of pleasure and satisfaction that can last for any amount of time of their life.

Happiness is an instinctive due to the fact that what can make one or some people happy might not be the case for others. In short, happiness can come from any aspect of a person’s life. For example about an accomplishment, or something good that is happenings in their life. Happiness if it is possible is even more personal than morality. Suffice to say happiness is a reaction, so basically one becomes happy after they have done or received something. There is the occasion of a person who is happy for no reason.

In summary, it is not necessary to behave morally to achieve happiness. With morality and happiness being as personal as they are, especially in the world we live in today with all this greed, the immoral behavior will seem much more appealing to the average person. This is due to the fact that immoral actions can create a shorter and quicker path towards instant gratification inducing happiness in a person. People don’t have to be perfect to be happy.

In contrast, some philosopher thinks the morality is essentially a requisite for happiness. Like Emmanuel Kant’s theory believed that certain types of actions including murder, theft, and lying were absolutely prohibited, even in cases where the action would bring about more happiness than the alternative(Cite Kantian ethics).

That means most people believe that all people have a moral reason to not just develop their own happiness, but also the happiness of others by doing what is right. An individual’s happiness is influenced by the actions of the person, as well as those of the people around them. That means that these people choose the happiness of other people besides their own happiness.

In addition, people should prefer their own happiness first and don’t think about moral behavior because morally behavior just refers to human actions just only judge people by right or wrong. The belief that the means to happiness should be justifiable and acceptable.

In short, a person who is characterized by immoral behavior is likely to receive a negative comment from other people. The idea that moral behavior is necessary for happiness it’s not true according to with Aristotle’s view on ethics disregards the role of morality in the achievement of happiness.

Most religious teachings attest to the view that morality is necessary for happiness. Happiness comes as a reward to individuals who conform to a society’s norms. However, morality is “the rules and precepts for human conduct, and not simply the causes of human behavior”(Cite Mill).

For example, they are a lot of religion out there but Christianity religion in specific put much stress on the strong connection between moral behavior and happiness. Christianity promises happiness to those who are morally upright. People should disagree that morality is necessary for happiness because people have to care about first about their own happiness first and then about others.

For philosopher Aristotle and Plato, people cannot use a principle to the determine the right courses of actions. In short, people need to look at what good and virtuous people would be able to really understand a situation see what is the best. For example, a good person has a good character such as generosity, and kindness and will use those qualities in making moral judgments and decisions.

They will take pleasure in sacrificing their own comfort for the good of another. That’s not fair because they are sacrificing their own happiness to make happy another person. People should disagree and build their own happiness first.

Happiness depends on ourselves. Aristotle saw happiness as a central purpose of the human life and goal. they should be able to be morally upright. In summary, people don’t depend on somebody else to be happy, they depend on their own self to get a happy life without negative comment saying what is good or bad.

The principle of happiness bases morality as an incentive to happiness which in itself is not moral. This means people will seek to be moral for the sake of happiness and not for the sake of morality Therefore if the morality is just an incentive to happiness, it means that others may achieve happiness without the use of incentive. Thus we can conclude that morality is not a requirement for happiness.

In conclusion, people are still choosing a life that is based on happiness. Choosing to define your own happiness. Happiness is the ultimate end and purpose of human existence. In summary, there are many beliefs and ideas about happiness. But I believe morality is not necessary to be happy.

Because people are free to do where they want, and people can extremely happy without morality happiness is something that happens in people life it can be any kind of thing, for example, an accomplish, family or something different. People don’t need morality to be happy. Morality is defined as right or wrong. Happiness something good that’s happening in people life.

Works Cited

• Aristotle Ethics Of Happiness Philosophy Essay. Retrieved from https://www.ukessays.com/essays/philosophy/aristotle-ethics-of-happiness-philosophy-essay.php?vref=1
• Achieving Happiness: Advice from Plato.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ethics-everyone/201008/achieving-happiness-advice-plato.
• “Happiness.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 20 Apr. 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness
• “Morality.” AllAboutPhilosophy.org, www.allaboutphilosophy.org/morality.htm.
• Vaknin, S. (n.d.). Morality as a Mental State. Retrieved from http://samvak.tripod.com/moral.html
• Findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2248/is_n122_v31/ai_18435720/+http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#Oth+http://books.google.ca/books?id=oj83D7aBgKMC&pg=PA94&dq=moral+behaviour+and+happiness
• “Utilitarianism.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 24 Apr. 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism.
• Valenzuela, Graciela. “Happiness: Aristotle vs. Utilitarianism.” Bear Market, 14 Dec. 2012

In order for one to best make a decision, it is important to carefully consider the best method to do so. Utilitarianism and Kant theories provide these methods. This paper presents the pros and cons of each of these theories. It also presents the comparison as well as the contrasts of these two theories and concludes with a summary of the text.

Utilitarianism and Kant theories both provide people with the moral structure which provide the basis for making a moral decision. Each of them has its benefits and flaws. For this reason, it makes it difficult to establish which one among them makes the suitable option with regards to everyday decisions. In order for one to decide, it is important to first understand the basic principles involved in each of them. Kantianism and utilitarianism have varied ways of determining whether or not our actions are right or wrong.

Kant theory states that we should consider the intentions and maxims of a particular action. This theory believes that “human life is valuable because humans are the bearers of rational life” (Harsanyi, 2017). In other words, this theory believes in the notion that human beings can freely behave rationally and that they cannot be merely used for the happiness or enjoyment of the other. Utilitarian, on the other hand, holds onto the belief that we should undertake the actions which result in a greater amount of happiness. The challenge with this belief is that it could involve the using of people as mere beings. This also means that sometimes it involves the sacrifice of one’s lives for the greater good (Sen, et al., 2012).

According to Hill, Utilitarian’s defend the punishment of the innocent, “if it is necessary to bring about a sufficiently important good effect” (Hill, 2014). Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that stems from the notion of consequentialism. Its basic idea is the fact that one can determine whether an action is correct or incorrect based on its outcome. In case the outcome brings happiness, then the choice is morally correct but in case it brings about sadness and pain, then the choice is morally wrong.

These theories have some comparisons

The two theories provide the moral structure with which people can decide on what actions to take. Both Utilitarianism and Kant’s theory provides the basis for moral decisions. Secondly, these two theories both follow the principle that they should be applied in all situations with no exceptions. The two theories both have the elements of quantitative methods. Utilitarianism has the hedonic calculus whereas Kant theory has ‘Goodwill + duty = Moral action (Sen, et al., 2012).

However, these two theories contrast in the following ways; one of these ways is that utilitarianism can be applied to any situation while on the other hand, Kant theory believes that non-moral commands such as hypothetical imperatives are useless. Secondly, these theories differ in the manner of their sense of duty. According to the Kantian theory the sense of duty is its guiding principle. Unlike utilitarianism, Kant’s ethical scheme signifies a universal categorical domineering rule of ethics. Thirdly, Kant’s theory contrasts greatly to the principle of Utilitarianism.

With Utilitarianism one acts in such a way that will bring about the greatest good for the greatest number, while according to Kant’s theory, one is required to act a certain way mainly because it is their duty to do so. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory that states that morality is entirely based on the results while on the other hand Kant theory is based on the duty or intention. Kant theory disregards the emotions while in utilitarianism, emotions play a big part in the decision making.

The advantages of Utilitarianism theory

Utilitarianism provides a strong sense of purpose. Through the use of this theory, one is able to make the right decisions. This is because it presents a broader view of consideration. It also promotes a world with more happiness. Utilitarian would want everything and everyone to be happy. For this reason, it results in a happy outcome for the whole world. Through this theory, individuals are able to consider the consequences of their actions.

Utilitarianism provides a clear and easy-to-understand guideline. Being one of the forms of consequentialism, this theory states that everything has a consequence. There are unit rewards if you are doing one thing sensible, and there are repercussions if you do something wrong.

Through this, people always strive to be morally and ethically good to avoid the consequences.

If everybody shares this ideal and puts it into apply, the planet would be a tremendous place to measure in. For example, no one would drink and drive because of the possible negative effects
The other advantage of this theory is that it takes into account all elements.Utilitarianism takes into considerations all sorts of elements that have good and bad side effects. As much as the theory is simple, it covers all sorts of elements. The theory is majorly concerned on whether or not the results of any actions will lead to happiness or unhappiness.In addition to this, utilitarianism helps in making tough decisions. This is because, through the theory, people will be able to think rationally and eventually make the right choices.

The disadvantages of Utilitarianism theory

In as much as this theory has a lot of advantages, there are some setbacks as regards to utilitarianism as follows; through utilitarianism, it is impossible to determine the consequences of an action. This is because through this theory it takes a longer time to discover the consequences of an action. Also, through this use of this theory, there is no protection of the minority.

The other disadvantage of this theory is that it is disputable on whether or not who can decide good or bad. There is no one who can absolutely say they have the right to say what is good or bad. This is because this is due to the varying nature of human beings. People have different beliefs about certain things. This makes it harder to determine with certainty that an action can be good or bad. An example is drinking alcohol. Some people may believe that it brings happiness while others can hold the belief that it is toxic to the body and therefore is not good.

Utilitarianism also prevents people from making speculations concerning the future. When actions are judged mainly through their outcome, then this makes it difficult to accurately determine the exact consequences. As a result, the theory ideal irrelevant. This theory also promotes favoritism. It is more difficult for one to make a utilitarian decision with their loved one on the line. This is because is such cases, there will be a tendency to favor a family member or the loved one. The use of the utilitarianism is time-consuming and difficult. This since, while using this theory, one considers the calculation and considerations of every action that one wants to take. This makes the whole process very difficult and time-consuming.

This theory also has negative consequences. It mainly focuses on the happiness result even if this means that one life has to be sacrificed. An example of this is euthanasia which is considered unethical and immoral in utilitarianism. So even if ending one person’s life can rescue the other through the process oforgan contribution, no one would dare kill a terminally ill patient even for a good cause. Even if the death of one will save ten people, the core idea of utilitarianism will prevail lastly this theory is subjective. It makes it hard to determine where the line can be drawn. Subsequently, not all bad actions are absolutely wrong.

Advantages of Kant’s theory

There are several advantages of the Kant theory. One of these advantages is that it is very straightforward. This theory is based on reason making it easily accessible to all. The other advantage of this theory is the fact that it is universal. Through this, it ensures that judgments are objective. This thus avoids the risk of appealing to the self-interests of people. This universality also ensures that the decisions are consistent from one situation to another.

Kant theory makes it clear that morality is doing one’s duty and not just following feelings. Through the theory, one cannot assume what is good for us is also good for all. The theory aims at treating everyone with fairness and just. It corrects the idea of utilitarian that some can suffer as long as others are happy

The theory also sees humans as being of intrinsic worth as they are the rational high point of creation. Through this, the theory ensures that people can neither be enslaved nor exploited (Posner, 2009).

This theory also makes it clear that duties are part of human experience. It insists that morality does not depend on religious laws, motives, as well as consequences. Kant theory is very categorical in ensuring that it lays down clear guidelines that apply to everyone and commands people to respect human life. It draws a clear line between laws and duty.
However, this theory has some disadvantages as follows;

Through the Kant theory, having the goodwill is not enough. Consequences are also important (Mill, 2015). Humans are rational, they must be treated as an end in their own right and not as the means to a capitalist end, argued that the “good will” is not enough. The penalties of moral actions and social goals that lead to a reasonable society are very important. Through the Kant theory, it is difficult to resolve moral dilemmas which involve conflicting duties.

Kant’s hypothesis is unique and not in every case effortlessly applicable. It reveals to us what kind of activities are great however not the best activity specifically circumstances. Kant appears to be confounded about whether morals are deontological or teleological. The fundamental thought is deontological yet there is a future objective. Some rationalist’s trust that Kant’s being agreeable to freedom and saying that ethical operators must comply with the standards given in the Categorical basic negate one another. In addition, people seldom act absolutely out of obligation as they generally have some desire for what they’ll receive consequently.

Kant’s view relies upon some thought of God to clarify the judiciously requested world, which means agnostics cannot acknowledge this hypothesis. Some people think putting obligation above inclination is nice and brutal. This is because there is the wrong spot for affection and individual relations in Kant’s hypothesis.
Kant theory does not address the nature of humanity. This is in regards to issues like abortion, euthanasia and so forth.

In conclusion, both theories are useful in the making of moral decisions. All of them have an influence. It is, therefore, important that one carefully considers each of them before settling on one. It is also imperative to consider the different pros and cons that each of them presents. This will be useful in making a sound decision while considering which one to apply. Different situations will also help in the decision of which of the theories to consider. This is because every situation is unique and for this reason, it may require the application of one or even both of these theories.

References

• Harsanyi, J. C. (2017). Morality and the theory of rational behavior. Social research, 623-656.
• Hill, T. E. (2014). Dignity and practical reason in Kant’s moral theory.
• Mill, J. S. (2015). Utilitarianism. Longmans, Green and Company.
• Posner, R. A. (2009). Utilitarianism, economics, and legal theory. The Journal of Legal Studies, 8(1), 103-140.
• Sen, A., Williams, B., & Williams, B. A. O. (Eds.). (2012). Utilitarianism and beyond. Cambridge University Press.

For many year time travel was the stuff of science fiction. This is only part of the imagination of the world until recently. Scientists now believe that the current laws of physics allow us to travel in spite of time. They believe that we can now come back to see our Founding Fathers signing the Declaration of Independence.

We can go to 2022 to watch the next World Cup or go to 3000 to witness the birth of the new millennium. Such travel would require a machine that capable of withstanding high pressure and an incredible amount of speed. Actual travel although time is largely agreed, but the effects of such travel are not so determined. As far as we know, time only moves in one direction is forward. But if you could loop back to visit the universe at an earlier point in time, a famous paradox arises.

Although the theory of time travel has been contested due to a variety of reasons, the Grandfather Paradox is one of the best paradox of time travel in which inconsistences emerge through changing the past. It has attracted the majority of attention from philosophers and it is this paradox that has serious consequences for the possibility of time travel. The name of this paradox came from a common description: a person travel back to the past to kill their own grandfather before the conception of their father or mother, which prevents the time traveler’s existence. So it will not make any sense because if you go back to kill your own grandfather so your own parents will not appear and so do you.

The point is if you go back to kill you grandfather, do you really exist again in your present world and if you do not exist in your real world can you travel back to the past and kill your grandfather? It’s really a paradox which does not make any sense when you try to argue about this time travel. So it impossible to travel through any time because you will unforeseen the consequences after that. People usually think travel through time is possible when technology was so develop in 21st century.

But scientists have not calculate the consequences may occur. For example, we cause some trouble while we are traveling and get stuck in that time dimension and you break some mentally truth that cause effects to the present or the future or worse. The simplest resolution to the grandfather paradox is that when you go back in time, you’re actually not going back into your own history but to a copy, and everything you do there influences the new alternate future of that universe, not your own past.

Or there will be another solution that you go back in time, kill your grandfather, thus you are not born so you can’t go back in time, thus your grandfather is not killed, thus you are born, so you go back in time and kill your grandfather and so on. You can see this is a looping linear series of events but really it is two entangled histories happening in parallel. So if the universe were to exist in a superposition of two states, your grandfather is alive and your grandfather is dead then the natural result is a superposition of two states, you’re born and able to go back in time to kill your grandfather and you’re not born and the natural result of these is a superposition of two states, your grandfather is dead and your grandfather is alive.

So from the logical perspective, this looping timeline is entirely consistent and there’s no paradox. In my opinion, those solutions to against the paradox is not proving that time travel is possible. You can see when you travel back and kill your grandfather so how can you suppose to appear when your grandfather does not appear. This event can change your whole timeline and even can change the world timeline.

What if you create a company that contain 50% of your country’s GDP and then you kill your grandfather and you will not able to exist so how can you create that company and what will happen to your country’s GDP. That the first example for the consequence you could made when you travel through time. The second example is when you travel back and kill your own grandfather you will create a new loop and the loop keep going and in an order is you kill you grandfather and you will not appear in present to go back to kill your grandfather.

That means you could bend your own timeline and leads to the different scenario. Therefore, I could say that time travel is impossible depend on the grandfather paradox. You can’t change what will actually happen or if you can so it must be change in present not in the past or future. It could be say that it is God’s decision and you have to follow.

The development of time travel research in the last century and at the beginning of this century has shown that constructing time machines are possible based on Einstein’s theory of relativity. Only the question of their stability is still open. The problematic of causality can’t be avoid via the version of possible parallel universes.

In particular, the problematic of consciousness, ego and alter ego which has not been discussed in research as it is in this essay, raises new questions in the line of paradoxes. But I think travel to the future is more possible than to the past. Because you can’t create the future in present but you can ruin the present when you change your past. In overall, I think time travel still need more time for scientists do more research and experiment, but in a hundred years from now I think.