Mr Khan said:
Right. In the Aristotlean sense of the word, "Happiness" is the goal of all humanity. No-one does not desire to be what i'm going to call "A-Happy" for short, because Aristotle's happiness was not limited to the emotion of joy or enjoyment, but related to the deeper notions of contentment, fulfillment, and a sense of connection with the world, as well as having all of their physical needs and desires met within reason (because overindulgence is not happiness." Settling A-Happy as the state in which all people desire to live, one must then ask how one can best act in order to both optimize the A-Happy of themselves and others. This then is the route of utilitarianism So i amend my previous post. It is utilitarianism founded upon the basis of Aristotlean ethics that provides the rational basis for humane morality. |
Thanks for expanding, but I'll be honest I have a difficult time with the term utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism as a term (for me at least, I may have it wrong), conveys a sense of using morals for a pragmatic purpose, and utility comes before the intrinsic value of said moral. But I believe happiness comes when one can transcend utility, and the moral is itself esteemed due to its link to what is good (which our conscience helps us discern).
Why it's a problem to me. If everything is in terms of what is useful and what isn't, well then what happens when something is not useful for me, but it is for my neighbor? I believe a person without religion can help said person, because their conscience (which makes them happy when they follow it) tells them what is right and what is wrong, beyond utility.
In this example, call it a sense of human compassion.
