Happiness That Leads To Unhappiness
The human civilization will come to an end if most people agree that “pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends”, as stated by John Stuart Mill. Tracing back the history, we could see that most atrocities that were done for some people’s pleasure led to catastrophes for others and that most agonies derived from utilitarian pursuit of happiness.
To start with, the happiness of some people results in the pain of others. As the game of beasts, war has always been a best example for this. To put it simply, war is motivated by the desire deep-rooted in people’s minds of wanting to acquire more: more power, more money, more land, etc. As an animal-like instinct, attaining more could provide people with a sense of contentment. However, this sense of fullfilment comes at the cost of innocent civilians’ sufferings. Take China as an example. The Anti-Japanese War took away more than 10 million people’s lives and suspend all ordinary social, commercial, and educational activities during the 8 years. Ironically, those who started the war in search of pleasure didn’t succeed in attaining what they desired: with 400 thousand soldiers died on the battle field of China, Japan also suffered painfully from wars. Therefore, considering happiness as the sole objective for one’s life may do harm to both others and oneself.
Some may argue that war is only an extreme case in which pursuit for felicity ends up in irremediable sufferings, and that through utilitarianism people could maximize their overall amount of happiness so that only a small group of people experience pain. However, such idea is a violation of ethics. For instance, in the One Who Walks Away From The Omelas, a short story depicting a serene, happy village, the prosperity of the whole city depends on the perpetual misery of a single child. Viewing from a utilitarian perspective, it is both justifiable and reasonable for the Omelas people to enjoy happiness at the cost of sufferings of an innocent boy. However, as William James puts it, “even though an impulse arose within us to clutch at the happiness so offered, how hideous a thing would be its enjoyment when deliberately accepted as the fruit of such a bargain?” Should this kind of happiness be people’s ultimate goal? Apparently no.
Moreover, there are other things more important than just pleasure to pursue in life. Gregor Mendel was willing to spend 9 years on hybridization experiments despite poor living conditions; Florence Nightingale abandoned her wealthy family and went to the battlefield to save the wounded soldiers; Charles Schulz kept on drawing everyday although he was scoffed by 39 publishers at the start of his career. They all rejected pleasant lives that they could have led. They all valued something more than happiness. Whether it’s truth, conscience, or dreams, life is simply more than emotional enjoyment. Similar ideas are also discussed in literature works. In Fahrenheit 451, the goal for the whole distopian society is to gain happiness. In order to quell quarrels and discrimination, all books are burnt. People are happy. However, as they start to get used to 24-hour soap drama series and view all written materials as ridiculous, their civilization is completely demolished.
To conclude, the following analogy delineates, not so appropriately, the nature of happiness. Suppose a man wants to hold a beautiful lovely cat called Happiness in his arms. Protesting in anger, the cat bites three passer-bys. To avoid such misfortune from happening again, the man studies the best way to hold a cat so that he could have Happiness by only wounding one passer-by. Realising this would be unfair for that one unlucky person, the man changes his strategy again and this time succeeds in holding the cat. However, soon he finds out that he couldn’t even take a bath or go to the restroom because of the cat. At last, the man understands that one should never view owning Happiness as one’s ultimate goal. All one could do is to pat it occasionally.