| | If the human soul had no being-at-work, no inherent and indelible activity, there could be no such moral stature, but only customs. But early on, when first trying to give content to the idea of happiness, Aristotle asks if it would make sense to think that a carpenter or shoemaker has work to do, but a human being as such is inert. His reply, of course, is that nature has given us work to do, in default of which we are necessarily unhappy, and that work is to put into action the power of reason. (1097b, 24-1098a, 4)
Note please that he does not say that everyone must be a philosopher, nor even that human life is constituted by the activity of reason, but that our work is to bring the power of logos forward into action. Later, Aristotle makes explicit that the irrational impulses are no less human than reasoning is. (1111 b, 1-2) His point is that, as human beings, our desires need not be mindless and random, but can be transformed by thinking into choices, that is desires informed by deliberation. (1113a, 11)
The characteristic human way of being-at-work is the threefold activity of seeing an end, thinking about means to it, and choosing an action. Responsible human action depends upon the combining of all the powers of the soul: perception, imagination, reasoning, and desiring. These are all things that are at work in us all the time. Good parental training does not produce them, or mold them, or alter them, but sets them free to be effective in action. This is the way in which, according to Aristotle, despite the contributions of parents, society, and nature, we are the co-authors of the active states of our own souls.
--http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/aris-eth.htm
True happiness (eudaimonia) is an activity of the soul (psuchç) in accordance with complete virtue (aretç) in a complete life sufficiently equipped with internal and external goods.
--http://www.egr.uri.edu/ime/Faculty/Jones/egr316/eudaimonia.htm
Ted, it is clear from these quotes (actually, my tacit acceptance of their truth), that we have different conceptions of "happiness." Having unshared fundamentals, we are unlikely to reach any kind of resolution on this matter. With that in mind, I will still go ahead and criticize your contribution to this thread -- for these 2 reasons ...
1) I love a mental challenge
2) To engage the minds of third-party viewers
Ted, you write ...
First, ethics, unlike epistemology and metaphysics is not a primary, or prior to science, but is dependent upon the scientific exploration of human nature. While I agree that ethics is not a primary, but dependent on metaphysical facts and their logical integration -- I disagree with the notion that ethics is dependent on the findings of the special sciences. This is so because I adopt a normative view of ethics, as opposed to the descriptive view of ethics that your quote implies.
You continue ...
Human happiness, while differing both quantitatively and qualitatively from animals' is still a biological phenomenon mediated by the same brain structures and neurotransmitters as are found in the higher animals ...
I'm not sure where you are going with this, Ted, by calling human happiness a biological (deals with living organisms and vital processes) phenomenon. And this business of reducing an experience so rich and vast as happiness down to the firing of some neurons or the release of some neurochemicals just seems to me to be reductive materialism (ie. something absurd) dressed up in scientific jargon.
You continue ...
We share much more with animals than we differ from them. This statement begs the question. You see, it doesn't matter what the ultimate answer is -- whether when, every thing shared is added up and then compared to everything not, whether the shared outweighs the not-shared -- the question ought to be about whether something specific (a 'happiness capacity') is shared.
You continue ...
I would define happiness in higher animals as spiritual flourishing, that is, mental health coupled with successful action. My problem with this definition is technical: You can't HAVE mental health without successful action -- and that's because of the kind of entity you are.
You continue ...
There most certainly are happy and unhappy horses and dogs. This reminds me of a quote:
"Did you ever see an unhappy horse? Did you ever see bird that had the blues? One reason why birds and horses are not unhappy is because they are not trying to impress other birds and horses."--Dale Carnegie
;-)
Anyway, you're ascribing 'happiness/unhappiness' to the dogs and horses. This is merely the consequence of your different view of happiness. When looking at the same animals, I'd describe their attitudinal differences to things like temperament, or to contingencies related to how humans have treated them (note how humans introduce the Man-Made into the otherwise Metaphysical -- ie. wild -- life of animals).
You continue ...
Second, higher animals, many mammals and birds especially, most emphatically do not live guided by instinct any more than humans do, as in suckling or sexual response. Wild animals must learn how to live as animals. This is why mammals raised from childhood by man must be carefully kept ... . If instinct were sufficient, animals raised by man could simply be dropped off in the woods and left to their own devices. This almost always ends in tragedy, with the animals starving ... The phenomenon that you are describing is a Man-Made phenomenon (rather than being a Metaphysical phenomenon, or 'fact' of nature -- if you will). It is an unnatural phenomenon. Instincts evolved to sustain animal life in the wild; for animals born in the wild, raised in the wild, etc. To use this unnatural contingency in order to infer that animals, necessarily, aren't more guided by instincts than humans -- is a fallacy. When every member of a wild-type species performs the same life actions -- then you can be sure that instinct (rather than free choice) is guiding their behavior. Here are some telling examples (from nhes.org) ...
"Rabbits dig a system of complex underground burrows called a warren."
--Maybe not all species of rabbits build these warrens, but all members of the same species do -- and they're all built in the same way.
"The beaver builds its lodge in the pond. Only part of the lodge shows above the water. If you look at a lodge from shore, you won't see an entry into it. That's because all entrances lie underwater."
--Did you catch that? ALL entrances lie underwater. No exceptions. The reason? Because there's never been a dissenting beaver? No. It's because beavers aren't "choosing" to do things the way that they do, the way that they all do, the way that they all have always done.
"The squirrel is an energetic builder that may make two types of homes. A squirrel that finds a cavity in a tree will use it as a home. Old holes made by woodpeckers are common. But when suitable homes are not available, a squirrel builds a home called a dray. Here they are safe from most enemies.
The squirrel builds a dray in the fork of a tree where it can't be shaken loose by strong winds. The squirrel breaks off branches and drops them on the fork. On top of the branches it places twigs and leaves. The squirrel forms a round hollow in the center of the structure with an entrance on one side."
--Maybe not all species of squirrels build these drays, but all members of the same species do (at least those not finding tree holes) -- and they're all built in the same way.
... so, bringing up the "mirror neuron" -- in order to fortify your case that higher animals aren't very much guided by instincts -- doesn't work. You see, the "learning" that animals are doing when they copy the behavior of other animals is merely "rote learning" (ie. automatic memorization). And memory is a perceptual faculty that integrates well with instinct (it requires no mental construct of a thinking, choosing animal).
You continue ...
No one can find happiness by deducing it from formulas ... This reminds me of a formula:
Desire + (Emotion / Reason) x (Imagination - Doubt) + (Action x Expectation) + Persistence = Happiness
--objectivehappiness.com
;-)
Of course memorizing some formula isn't sufficient for building the kind of life and character that would entail the experience of human happiness. I'm not saying THAT. But the "acquisition of a few principles" is definitely a step in the right direction. Think of the absurd idea of acting WITHOUT principles. Man can't survive like THAT. Man is the kind of entity that survives by forming principles of action (rather than relying on instinct, backed up by some sharp fangs and claws).
You continue ...
Happy horses prance ... But what about merely, transiently-excited horses, Ted? Don't they prance, too? How, pray-tell, could you differentiate happy horses from the merely excited ones? Do you equate happiness with mere excitement -- so that you wouldn't HAVE to differentiate and thus be more precise about your own conception of what it is that happiness is? Maybe the question is unfair, but your ascription of "some kind of happiness" to animals is just too vague to leave me comfortable.
Ed
|
|
