Are you truly Happy?

Arjun Bedi
PHIL 105
Professor Cosand
3/24/2015

Kant argues that good will is the highest good obtainable for human beings and he is
correct in that hypothesis. Eudaimonia perpetuates the idea of an ideal human being or of
perfection; Humans by definition are imperfect so Aristotles idea is inherently flawed. Kant
opts for more realistic ways of attaining happiness through ideas like performing ones duty or
following the categorical imperative, maintaining a desire-satisfaction balance, and concerning
oneself with the means rather than worrying about the ends.
The Categorical Imperative is discussed as the only rule to follow in ethics. In
Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant describes the sole purpose of the Categorical
Imperative stating, Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will
that it should become a universal law. In other words, Kant conveys that it is only acceptable to
follow through with an action if everyone were to act in the same way. One of his main examples
on the morality of lying proves this idea; if lying were acceptable in society, then it would be
okay for everyone to lie, but if that were the case then language would not be reliable and truth
would cease to exist. This does not make sense logically so as a result, Kant concludes that lying
is not an acceptable action. The Categorical Imperative is also viewed as the way of determining
what motivates action. According to Kant, it can be broken down into the command of reason,
the hypothetical, and the categorical. The command of reason implies that individuals have the
free will to obey or disobey any kind of laws that are set up. Generally speaking, non-rational

objects do not obey this imperative law while rational objects do. By this logic, rational people
are seen as autonomous and have control over what they want to do and what they can do. This
then breaks down into both the hypothetical, which is consequentialist and must have an end to
means and the categorical, which is rational, objective, and necessary. Kant finds the
hypothetical inherently selfish, as it is about what the individual wants in the end, and thus
favours the categorical. He believes that morality follows closer in line with the concept of the
categorical which is about doing what we have to do regardless of our desires. In this sense we
find happiness because we are treated fairly; the categorical imperative is synonymous with the
Golden Rule which is based on the idea of treating others how you would want to be treated. The
most pure form of happiness can be felt when an individual knows that they are receiving the
same amount of benefits as someone else. It is a long term happiness which can be cyclical,
meaning if an individual does an action the favour will be returned to them, and is more
beneficial for ones well-being in the long run than engaging in impulsive desires which create
only short term happiness.
Other important facets of the Categorical Imperative, when it comes to lying, are an
individuals moral obligation and the false assumption of knowing. Kant talks about how an
individual has a moral obligation to answer a question so they can either do so by telling the
truth, by lying, or by doing neither. In class we used the example of a killer entering a home and
asking your friend where you are. If your friend is an Aristotelian thinker, then they will tell the
truth because if they lie then they are no longer satisfying the human ideal and cannot achieve
Eudaimonia. If your friend tells the truth about where you are though then you will die and that
is not being moral on their part. So Kant opts for the intermediate option of not answering the
question because then you dont lie or tell the truth and shirk moral obligation. Kant also claims

that acting on false assumptions can lead to improper conclusions. How can we view
consequences of actions if we cannot determine the future? We cannot so as a result
consequences do not matter right now. All that is important when looking at situations is what
means were used to achieve an end and having respect for that end.
Kant argues that means are as important as ends when it comes to determining happiness
because good intentions matter just as much as consequences. Kant frequently discusses the idea
of duty and how performing your duty or at least having the intention of doing so leads to good
will, which in turn leads to happiness. Take donating money for instance. Kant states that
even though it is possible that a universal law of nature could subsist in accordance with that
maxim, still it is impossible to will that such a principle should hold everywhere as a law of
nature. For a will that resolved in this way would contradict itself, inasmuch as cases might often
arise in which one would have need of the love and sympathy of others and in which he would
deprive himself, by such a law of nature springing from his own will, of all hope of the aid he
wants for himself. Here Kant reiterates the contradictory idea of the Categorical Imperative
implying that a law of nature cannot hold true because if the individual does not believe in
charity then they would not want charity for themselves if they were struggling, even though that
is not the case. So the individuals point of view would be hypocritical and therefore immoral.
But Kant also implicitly declares that simply the idea of charity is contributing to the idea of
good will so happiness is easily obtained in this way; regardless of if donated money actually
changes someones life or not, the intention of wanting to better it will lead to the donators
happiness, if they do not have a hypocritical stance about the concept of altruism.
Aristotle has a different view on the subject of happiness. He believes that the
function of man is to live a certain kind of life, and this activity implies a rational principle, and

the function of a good man is the good and noble performance of these, and if any action is well
performed it is performed in accord with the appropriate excellence: if this is the case, then
happiness turns out to be an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. Aristotle believes that
happiness can only be attained through the exercise of virtue and that it is the pinnacle of human
nature which humans can only reach through devotion to exercising reason and rationality. This
idea that he lays out is incorrect though when looking through Kants lens. Aristotles idea of
Eudaimonia holds humans to a false standard that can never be reached. In theory it may be
practical, but never giving into desire or always thinking rationally is impossible. As
demonstrated earlier with the serial killer example, acting in the most moral sense may not
always provide favourable results. In that situation most humans would lie and say their friend is
not even in the house meaning that they would not conform to the ideals set out by Aristotle. So
again in theory the idea is plausible, but it has no standing in the real, practical world. Another
example of this would be thinking who we could hold to that standard in society. Are judges,
celebrities, or CEOs meant to fit in with this mold? They also cannot think in this perfect rational
way and so if these highly revered people in our society cannot follow the Eudemonistic
principles, how can it be expected of normal people?
In summation, Kants model on satisfaction of inclinations seems to be more suited to
working in the real world. He believes that upholding good will is the way to a pure happiness
unlike Aristotle who believes that happiness is sought through moral virtue. Aristotle tends to
focus on the ends too much and as a result loses out on the happiness that can be received
through the means of doing some action. Kants principles seem to make more sense not only
because they are easier for humans to follow, but also because they are inherently unselfish; most
of his theory revolves around considering yourself within the context of others which creates

happiness for everyone rather than just the individual. As long as each individual can do their
duty then happiness is a possibility for everyone. Just this fundamental concept seems much
nicer than having to act in a compartmentalized manner to achieve an ideal of happiness.
Humans do not want an ideal. They strive for it, but gain happiness out of not being ideal and
that is just the way life works.