When the nineteenth century British economist Adam Smith wrote his Wealth of Nations he did so under the auspices that happiness is considered to be the ultimate goal of all economic activity. Greater wealth is not synonymous with increased happiness: I’ve said it before, “money is like oxygen—the more you have of it, the easier it is to breathe.” Through years of evolution of economic thought economics diverged from the study of the mechanics of human happiness and replaced it with those things which were the material requisite to make someone happy. This eventually evolved into the economic concept of utility—“the happiness or satisfaction gained from a good or service.” When choosing between two different things a person is apt to choose the one that maximizes their satisfaction or happiness.
The Greeks had a term Eudemonia: That has been translated into meaning either “happiness” or “human flourishing.” Aristotle knew that Eudemonia was constituted of virtues through the rational activities conducted within a complete life; one of which was friendliness. The “right action” of friendliness is one of the virtues that lead to happiness and, thus, the “highest good.” The by-product of social relationships is our own happiness—not because we do so for our own gain, but because those actions which we partake in are intrinsically good. In other words, in the Aristotelian view happiness is not something that is to be pursued; rather it is something that finds you when you do virtuous things.
Whether or not happiness is something that is meant to be pursued, rather than allowing it to pursue you, is something that you can decide whether or not to take up yourself. The adage “what comes around, goes around” has some meaning to it, however.
Robert Putnam, a political scientist from Harvard University, analyzed the phenomenon of social detachment in his book Bowling Alone. From memberships in various social and civic organizations, to visiting friends and neighbors, to being a part of sports leagues—such as bowling—he illustrates how Americans are only 30-50 percent as connected to one another than we were in the 1950s. Why has this happened? As the individual pursuit of wealth became a higher priority to everyone, we forgot about the emotional attachments that makes the pursuit worthwhile. The sociopolitical climate since the middle of the 20TH century has been one where apathy of social and moral concerns and the acquisition of wealth have overcome a consciousness of the issues of the larger community and the respect people have for it.
Yes, everyone seems to have an agenda. Some genuinely do it out of a concern for legitimate issues; the remainder of people do it for myriad other reasons. Likewise, some of the issues are genuine and some are not. The analysis of this is outside the scope of this discussion, short of it to be said: Social connectedness has been replaced with social apathy. Respect for thy neighbor has been replaced with apathy for everyone around me but those I favor. The virtues of community and civic pride have been vanishing with a Machiavellian drive for the goal…
…When, in fact, the goal is right under our noses and most are not able or don’t care to fathom it.
No comments:
Post a Comment