The morality of humans is dependent on factors which range from religion, cultural orientation and most importantly the environment in which one finds self in. There are considerations on whether happiness or the meaning determine the morality in life. This discussion entails the truth behind the reason for morality based on the argument from four scenarios
There are a group of people who look at the meaning of life to be the reason for the pursuit of moral life while others see it from a different façade in which they believe that happiness informs their pursuit to a moral life. According to Camus, once one thinks that the world is unfair to them they should contemplate living in opposition and become defiant to what the world may offer. He suggests that once there are aspects of contempt in the treatment from the world, then there is evidence that there is a lack of meaning to life. As he puts it, once there is no meaning to life one should go as far as contemplating ending life. Camus believes that the meaning of life is essential that one should not live once the elements of meaning are lacking. However, he cautions that despair and loneliness should not take people to the point of killing themselves. His narrative confirms the point that the meaning of life supersedes happiness when choosing a moral life
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
There is a unique reasoning from Frankl’s argument. As per his averments, he says that there is no universally known single definition to the meaning of life for humans. It is dependent on the personal view of what life really entails to give one’s own definition to the meaning of life. These life meanings are distinctive and unique as they are derived from an individual’s experiences. Some of the experiences are derived from happiness while others are from sad situations. He goes ahead to give an example from the Greeks whose definition of the meaning of life is defined by experiences of sufferings. According to Greeks beliefs, one is assured of the good life in future and that despite the occurrences marked by sufferings presently, the focus should be on the future in which meaning of life is tied to. However, he warns that the opportunity people enjoy in their quest to get the meaning of life should be marked by some sense of responsibility. In his overall assertion, Frankl believes that there should be no freedom without responsibility when one is looking for the meaning to life. Therefore, it can be confirmed that happiness to Frankl does not give the reasons for morality rather it informs the meaning to life.
Bollenbaugh is for the idea that the meaning of life is the reflection of the moral vision. According to him, it is within the confines of the meaning of life that the moral vision is attainable. Happiness is a weak variable to be applied in the moral visioning of life. He insists that people are not in a position to amicably define what happiness really entails. It is of importance to note from this argument that there are conflicting versions depending on people of what happiness really entails. It is thus becoming difficult to use happiness as the factor for determining what moral vision is. It is essential first for one to have a full command of what happiness entail before considering whether it has an influence on somebody’s moral life. It is because of confusion which people have inculcated in regard to happiness and morality which has led to social failures. Importantly, Bollenbaugh argues that happiness is as a result of practices geared towards finding a meaning to the moral life. Essentially this means that happiness comes as a result of endeavors one is putting in place to live a life of morality. Lastly, it is within Bollenbaugh’s belief that it is because of one’s utilitarianism and egoism that makes them compare happiness to the meaning of life in consideration for morality.
The book of Job gives much insight to the whole idea of happiness and morality of one’s life. According to the book, Job is righteous meaning he has passed the morality test. It can be argued from a Christian perspective that Job somehow understands the meaning of life. That one who is righteous and morally observant is expected to be excepted from sufferings by God. However, he questions this with the challenges of health and loss of wealth which he was subjected to. From the book, the argument is that evil should be punished with evil while righteousness should be rewarded with good things. Nonetheless, this is not the case as seen in Job’s situation as the reward is different from what is expected. This is giving the confirmation of the argument that it is not happiness which determines the morality of someone but rather defining the meaning of life. It is clear from the argument of Job that despite the challenges he underwent his understanding of the meaning of life did not make him deviate from morality. Suppose, Job’s decisions of not cursing God are influenced by emotions such as happiness and sadness, then it could have been inevitable to curse God. However, due to the fact that Job understood what God was, he remained faithful and let the rest to be done by God.
Conclusion
In summary, people should understand that morality is not subject to emotions such as happiness but rather is the understanding of the meaning of life such as the consequences of actions which makes one adhere to a given rule or instruction.
