Thoughts on Happiness

        What is happiness? Is it the sound of laughter in the air, or the smile spread across

someone’s face? Is it a person so in love that they are willing to do anything for their partner? Is

it the capacity to experience things differently than others? Or is it something unknown,

something that can be confused with so many emotions that it is never truly known without a

smile?

           One theory on happiness is that all our needs must be met in order to be self actualized

and, ultimately, truly happy. Abraham Maslow came up with the hierarchy of needs. The

needs follow the order of physical, safety, belongingness and love, and esteem needs as our

maintenance needs. Our self-actualization needs are in the order of cognitive, aesthetic, self-

actualization (to find fulfillment), and transcendence (to help others find others find fulfillment)

needs.

         According to Maslow, these needs must be accomplished in that exact order to truly find

transcendence and happiness. But can happiness be dictated? Can it only occur when following

a systematic theory?

          The Buddhist doctrine of impermanence is the belief that all things, human beings

included, are constantly changing and moving. Therefore because of this constantly changing

nature, no emotion is definite and even the idea of happiness occurs with some anxiety. They

wonder if their happiness will last, how can they hold onto it? Will it return? And often, it is this

anxiety that drives it away.

           John Stuart Mill came up with the greatest happiness principle. The greatest happiness

principle states that the more pleasure and the less pain caused by an action makes it a morally

better action. The greatest happiness principle builds on the values that are generally important

to everyone, pleasure and pain.

         Personally, I believe that happiness is nothing tangible. It is not something that can be

attained through taking certain steps, and it cannot be truly defined. It is nothing, but still

everything. Happiness is happiness, and that’s all there is to it.

And that, folks, is all there is to it.

-heather.

A Social Networking Society

         As a teenage girl that has grown up with a computer, the ‘social network’ is a thing that has had a huge impact on my life. Every person that you meet, you think ‘I’ll Facebook them.’ And why wouldn’t you? Living in today’s society that is a natural, reoccurring thing.  Or, you may wonder what their MySpace looks like, or formspring, or even if they have a dailybooth account. When they don’t, they may even be shunned.

          We all know that look, the one that says you’re-such-a-noob. More specifically if someone has never even heard of Facebook, which I have begun to consider impossible, they would never live it down, even if they soon created an account to redeem themselves. But, what’s so great about it? Some might say that being able to connect with friends, or meet people you have never met before are great reasons. It seems that on the internet, there is no longer such a thing called stranger danger.

        Sure, whomever you add can access all of your personal information, and sure, once you put it up there you can never get it off the internet, whether or not you close your account. But, who cares about that? It’s not like one of your ‘friends’ is going to look up all of your information, and stalk you. In fact, if they did, the proper etiquette would be to laugh it off, feeling flattered because it was you that they ‘creeped,’ not another person.

         But is social networking really all its chocked up to be? Having countless people with access to your personal information, the possibility that you could be anonymously bullied, the fact that you could be testing your own safety on such a site, is the one thing that no one seems to notice. Cyber bullying, for example, is huge. It can have drastic affects and by joining one of these networks, you are putting yourself out there to be brutally attacked and judged by others.

         Yes, the social network has its extremes, huge ups, and huge downs, but it is unavoidable in today’s society. It is everywhere you go, and it simplifies everything. Yes, you could pick up a phone, but who’s to say they’ll answer? Who’s to say you aren’t too lazy to move your gaze from the computer, and even dial on the telephone?

         What has happened to our society? Is our reliance on technology so horrible? I think the most important question now though, is if social networking really isn’t all it seems to be, would people even be able to fully leave it behind?

When they frown on 'kids today,' maybe our grandparents aren't totally wrong?

-heather.

Are There Any Acts Definitively Wrong?

      What makes a person immoral? Can one act be definitively right or wrong, no matter the intent? How much can morality be based on intention alone, if the action itself is not a thing to be considered moral?

      Taking into consideration huge acts of inhumane slander, or violence, there’s really no doubt that there are certainly some actions that are without one single doubt, absolutely, horrifyingly wrong. Take the holocaust, for example, millions upon millions of people were killed, and millions more suffered all for the sake of one man, one political group, and wrong intentions. Surely there is no way that an action such as that, the murder of so many innocents, can be called anything short of definitively wrong.

      However, the intentions behind the holocaust are not what one would consider good. What if a deed that is wrong in itself, has good intentions behind it? Is it the deed itself that matters most, or its intent? If one were to kill someone solely in self defense, is that murder able to be counteracted by the intent?  The intention in such a case was likely only protection, so can the action itself still be considered completely wrong?

         I believe that for anything to be considered completely wrong, no ifs, ands, or buts, there must first be bad intentions. If the intent was to kill or harm in the first place, then the action becomes that much worse. If there was no cruel intention, on the other hand, then the action becomes something that, while not a good thing, is not as morally wrong as an action with the wrong intent.

         In the end, I think that it is who a person is, and what they try and strive to do that matters, not what they do. While yes, what is done is what, ultimately, affects the world, I don’t believe if a person performs an action with a pure heart that the action itself can truly be so bad. In the end it relies more on the person and the thoughts involved than it does on the action.



It is the person that defines the action; not the other way around.

-peace, heather.

WikiLeaks: Too Far?

    WikiLeaks is a non-profit, international organization that publishes private, secret and classified information from anonymous news leaks and news sources. It has been both highly criticized, and highly praised; but whether the world likes it or not, WikiLeaks is huge. But, is this a good thing? Do we deserve to know all WikiLeaks is telling us? Where do we draw the line on freedom of speech? Do we have to wait until things get dangerous?

     There is a certain extent, I believe, of things that citizens of any country deserve to know. Things that perhaps governments keep from them and perhaps other governments do not. But these things- they don’t involve what is, or could potentially be dangerous.

     If there is no extent, as some may believe, to which information that should not be made public, than how would people be safe? Will there not always be someone willing to use what information they have for things that do not define a greater good?

       However, I do not believe WikiLeaks is completely wrong in its mission. There are things that should be public domain, just are there are things that should not. But whose right is it to decide that?

       Our world is a place of hatred, warfare, anger, fear, violence, and wrong-doings. But it is also a place of love, happiness, and hope, and there are people out there who will only see the good in others; I am not one of them. There are people out there who will use the things they learn for crimes that should never be committed, but are they really to be blamed if we just hand over the exact knowledge that they need?

I don't know if I would call it right or wrong; and I don't know if I really have the right to do so either way.

-heather.

Are We Obligated?

         If you are in possession of great wealth, is it your responsibility to help those with less than yourself? If you’re able to provide assistance to someone in need, are you obligated to do so?  Do we have a moral obligation to help others?

      Social Darwinism, a belief that was popularized by Herbert Spencer in the late Victorian era in England, states that the strongest and the fittest should survive, and the weak and unfit should be allowed to die. If one were to apply this belief to one’s own life, then the answer each of those questions would be no; the unfit are weak and deserve what they get. This is naturalistic fallacy at its best; it implies that just because something happens, that means is should happen. In no way one should allow others to suffer simply because they are weaker than oneself. Social Darwinism can cause people to assume that what is naturally right is also morally correct?

     The Buddha Gautama, on the other hand, believed that the goal of life is to end suffering, and reach nirvana, or enlightenment. A part of achieving this state of nirvana is through doing the right thing and the right thing often involves helping those in need. While we do not, perhaps, have any natural obligation to help others, do we not have that obligation on a moral level?

     While there are many different ideas and philosophers that have considered this subject, my own thoughts are quite simple. No, we are not obligated as members of the human species to help others. We aren’t even obligated to care. However, there are those who do care, and do help others despite that fact, and that is what makes them good people.

                

    Obligated or not, it's what we do that defines us as people. Personally, I would rather be remembered as a good person, or not at all.

-heather

Is Beauty Strictly Visual?

         Beauty is a concept that many people struggle with throughout their lives. Yet, what really is beauty? Is beauty the way we look, or act, or feel? Is it something tangible, or is it even real? How do you truly define something such as beauty? Does being beautiful make us better people? Does it help us to advance in life? What is beauty?

     When you see a man or woman on the cover of a popular magazine, with flawless skin, big eyes, and pouting lips, don't you instantly think wow, what a beauty? Or do you stop and wonder what that person really looks like, under the make-up, without the airbrushing? Do you ask yourself if they are beautiful on the inside, or are you too caught up in their good looks? While even the best of us have our moments where we see something so devastatingly good looking that we simply have to spend a moment of our time ogling, it doesn't always mean that what we see is real beauty. But then, what makes a person truly beautiful?

      While outer appearances do count for something, they aren't everything when it comes to beauty. There are people in this world who will argue to their very last breath that it is good looks and wealth that matter, and then there are others, much like myself, who believe beauty is a combination of things, and all of which rely on a person's insides as opposed to their outer appearances. These are things such as the ability to feel empathy, to sympathize, having the self-esteem to embrace oneself and one's flaws, and walk with confidence. To possess the want to help others, and the intelligence and thought capacity to make it through the day.

      Beauty might mean everything to this world, but it is in a way opposite than what is common belief. The people who are able to rise above adversity, look passed crude rumours, and see love for what it really is; these are the people who have changed this world, and they are what it means to be beautiful.  Ghandi, the Dalai Lama, Martin Luther King Jr., they are the people who have made a difference in our world, and they are beautiful. Embrace yourself as who you are, and you are beautiful; no ifs, ands, or buts.

Is this beauty?

Covergirl.

Or is it this?

His holiness the 14th Dalai Lama.

Despite how corny it sounds, inner-beauty is beautiful; embrace yourself.

-heather out.

A Vegetarian's Perspective

     Speciesism, a term coined by philosopher Peter Singer, means to discriminate in favour of one species, most often the human species, over another, especially in the exploitation or mistreatment of animals by humans.* Should that not be considered the same as sexism, or racism? To choose one species over another is just the same as picking one race or sex over another, is it not?

     If an animal is a sentient being, then it is conscious; it has senses, and can therefore feel pain. Being sentient is considered an important requirement to having interests, and the inability to have interests, some philosophers argue, is what separates humans from non-human animals. Therefore, are not all sentient animals to be considered morally equal?

     According to philosopher Joel Feinberg, humans have a moral duty to animals. This is because he believes that animals do have conscious wishes and desires; thus they are morally equal or deserving. What right do we have to deprive them of their own rights?

     Aristotle argued that animals have no soul, and therefore are not equal. However, just how valid is such an argument when there is, perhaps, no such thing even as a soul? The meaning of having a 'soul' is not set, and changes drastically with every person’s views. I believe that, if real, a soul is nothing tangible, and therefore it is not for the human species to decide whether or not another living, conscious being is in possession of one.

    When taking into consideration animal abuse, or even eating meat; which is worse, the abuse and death of a human, or the abuse and death of an animal? Likely, most would say that of a human, over a non-human animal is worse, just as our laws reflect. Animal abuse, or killing, is a minor offence, as opposed to that of a human, which would often lead to a death sentence in today’s justice system.

    If humans and non-human animals are indeed morally equal, as Singer believes, then what does that make slaughter houses? Factory farming? Animal experimentation? If humans and non-human animals are morally equal, why are these things so easily over looked by society today?

     Just think, next time you put on makeup that was tested by non-human animals, or contemplate the food you eat, how would you feel if that was human? In the end, what, really, is the difference? How do you excuse the purposeful harm, or death, of another conscious being? One that is likely more like you, than you believe.

What do you think?

Just some food for thought; pun intended.

-heather

*Speciesism definition curtesy of http://www.dictionary.com/.