Michael Toles Sr.
English 3080
Mr. George Pullman
12/11/02
The Elements of Happiness
In this paper, I will interpret the components, which Aristotle explains that people
associate with happiness. Next, I will analyze those components of happiness and
scrutinize how they are used and could be used in relation to modern day society.
Afterwards I will explain the connection between happiness and deliberative rhetoric.
Finally, I will provide a sample deliberative speech demonstrating some of the parts and
topics involved in happiness.
Aristotle's definition of happiness
In 1.5.3, happiness is defined as "success combined with virtue or as self
sufficiency in life or as the pleasantest life accompanied with security or abundance of
possessions and live bodies (slaves), with the ability to defend and use these things.
Furthermore, Aristotle contends that peoples associate with happiness parts that includes
good birth, numerous friendships, worthy friendships, wealth, good children, numerous
children, a good old age, virtues of the body, reputation, honor, good luck and virtue. It
is the people’s belief that to be happy, a person needs to possess one or more of these
traits."
Parts of happiness and their role in today's society
Good Birth
The definition in Aristotle’s On Rhetoric, expresses that some believes that the
ancestral lineage of a person to be "honorable, virtuous, and wealthy and must also be of
legitimate parents." (1.5.5) It is stressed that those who follow this line of reasoning, in a
deliberative argument, would be more comfortable with those they are more familiar with
rather than outsiders.
Today this component holds validity. In our national constitutional, Article II,
sec. I, expresses the qualifications needed to become president. One of those
qualifications is that the candidate be a natural citizen by birth. People who acquired
citizenship through other means rather than natural birth are prohibited from running for
the presidency. It is my belief that the forefathers constructed this clause due to the same
reasoning for the Good birth component. The people felt safer, more incline to follow the
leadership of a natural citizen as opposed to a naturalized citizen. It was argue by one of
my previous instructors, who’s name I am unable to recall, that the architects of the
constitution create this clause due to their weariness of foreign nationals. They believed
that foreigners that gain citizenship and achieved the presidency would have a better
chance of overthrowing the government. After over two hundred years, this clause has
not been amended. This shows that politically, the people of our country are concern
with the birth of our political leaders. Any person that is not a citizen would find it
difficult to run for President in our country.
Good Children and Numerous Children
In 1.5.6, good children are linked with numerous children. The second sentence
of that paragraph implies that if one has numerous children they all must be good, or to
have good children one must have many to be happy. Therefore having one or the other
will not make a person happy. Aristotle goes on to discuss why having good and
bountiful offspring play a vital role in one's happiness. The children both male and
female are to be excellent in body, stature, beauty, strength, athletic prowess, including
excellence in mind in order for the parent to receive happiness.
Person looking to seek political position could campaign on issues that parents
find advantageous to their children. Some people that are currently in office petitions for
better and stronger laws governing the welfare of our children. Issues concerning the
drinking age, education, and abortion can assist in furthering a politician's career, if these
issues are advantageous to enough voters.
Wealth
The definition of wealth as "an abundance of cash, land, possession of tracts
distinguished by numbers and size and beauty and also possession of implements and
slaves and cattle distinguished by number and beauty; and all these things [should be]
privately owned and securely held and freely employed and useful." (1.5.7)
Wealth is an apparent part of happiness today. Many of us look at those who are
wealthy as to be successful whether the wealth was inherited or obtained through hard
work. For the most part people are prone to believe those who have accomplished
enormous wealth over those who haven’t. However in the presidential race in which
Ross Perot participated, wealth was not a major factor for the happiness of the American
people. The American people looked more towards the views and honor of the
candidates. Perot with all of his wealth proved to be the less favorable, because of his
virtues. Regardless of his wealth, the people could not overlook his actions and views.
Good Reputation
Good reputation is "a matter of achieving the respect of all people, or having
something of the sort that all or the general public or the good the prudent desire." (1.5.8)
Reputation still holds in today's society. Depending on the perception, whether
good or bad, the respect of your followers may differ from that of others. One could have
a bad reputation and be admired by many for that reason, and despised by others, but still
remain happy. When considering this point the issue of the confederate flag comes to
mind. History details the relationship of the confederate emblem on the flag to the
enslavement of blacks and other minority races. Its very existence signifies hatred and
racial inequality. Still today, politicians campaign on the issue to restore the Georgia
confederate flag arguing that it glorifies heritage not hatred. The newly elected governor
of Georgia campaign on the right to have the confederate emblem visible on the state
flag. The defeat governor responded that he felt his issue against the flag was what made
him loose the reelection.
Honor
Honor as defined by Aristotle is "a sign of a reputation for doing good, and
benefactors, above all, are justly honored, although one with the potentiality of doing
good is also honored." (1.5.9)
Honor plays a part in creating happiness for people in our society today. Whether
good or less than favorable, if one person honors another for his actions, the honored
feels joy in his accomplishment. In Aristotle's definition he cites "good people", which
implies that they are being honored for good deeds. Today this too is a matter of
perception. For example, while most of us would not honor Bin Laden for his terrorist
actions against America, his followers would. Regardless of the incident honored,
happiness does follow. Many of the people that follow Bin Laden beliefs would support
him in running for office, where many that doesn't would not. For his supporter, Bin
Laden could campaign how his belief would be more advantageous for their country
rather than the opposing views.
Referencing back to the Ross Perot campaign, he'd made statements that were less
than honorable. His opponents used these statements against him, proving to the voters
that Perot was not the type of person we needed in office. Perot eventually loss the
election due to voters not finding him or his intentions honorable.
Good old Age
A good old age is defined as "to age slowly without pain; for no one is enjoying a
happy old age if he ages quickly or if gradually but with pain." (1.5.15)
In the race for presidency in which Bob Dole was a candidate, statistics were
circulated that predicted the chances of Bob Dole dying while in the presidency. It is
believed that many Americans took heed to these statistics and voted against Bob Dole.
Of course other political factors contributed to his defeat. Yet when considering the
reasoning of his age as a factor, it shows that the people of America were not convinced
of his age being good old age. They were more concern of his death and what would
happen to the presidency if he died during office. It was not considered how well he
lives, his health and daily routine, his knowledge, nor the fact the he is a war veteran.
Politically, the people wanted someone who would be in office for the long haul. So in
this sense, good old age would not have brought the majority of Americans happiness.
Numerous friendships and Worthy friendships
The meaning of numerous and good friendships, is "a friend is one who is active
in providing another with the things that he thinks are benefits to him. One who has
many friends of this sort is a person of many friends; if they are worthy men, he is a
person of good friends." (1.5.16)
Having good and numerous friendships applies in today’s society. In the
deliberative setting, politicians depend heavily on whom they know and what that person
can do for them. The more friends they have implies the more power and/or connections
they have. For example, politicians make friends that are in influential positions, that
share their views, in order to further their causes. Looking at how the Supreme Court
justices are selected. The President of the United States selects candidates based upon
shared views. President Eisenhower selected his long-term buddy Earl Warren, who
became the Chief Justice, because of their political friendship. Warren later went on to
oppose the views of President Eisenhower, whom since regretted appointing Warren.
Virtues of the body
It has been taught in many courses that jurors have the tendency to acquit
defendants that are attractive, and convict those that are less attractive. In some cases,
people are more inclined to listen to people who are pleasant to look at, and believe those
who's body exemplifies strength. In theory a strong physique implies a strong character.
If there is any validity to this theory than those who are appealing to look at would be
able to use their beauty to their advantage. The guilty would go free if the jury is incline
to believe that it is impossible for a beautiful person could commit crimes. Politicians
could sway the polls in their favor if their platform is worthy and their physical
appearance is pleasing to the eyes. Lawyers invest large amounts of money in
consultants to make their client look appealing to the jury.
Also in political arenas, more entertainers are being used to push political issue to
the public. Many of these lobbyists are attractive and/or athletic. In general, the public
follows their platforms mainly due to star envy. Those followers have faith that their
beautiful role models are spreading a message that is worthy of attention. And to agree
with the beautiful people, makes the followers happy to be in the same light.
Good luck
Good luck means "to get and keep those good things of which chance is the cause,
either all or most or the most important." (1.5.17)
Good luck is vital to many people's happiness. Playing the lottery and winning,
gambling and winning, finding money, goods and opportunities are representation of how
many people depend on good luck. When individuals are fortunate to have one or more
of these incidents to happen to them, it brings them happiness. Those who feel that they
are unlucky or have bad luck, receives the opposite of happiness. Today, all of us
whether individually or united, credits good luck when overcoming obstacles set before
us. In the political sense, a politician could run on the platform of bringing the lottery to
their state. Attempting to make the voters believe that in order to become millionaires,
you have to play the lottery.
Virtue
Aristotle relates virtue with praise. (1.5.18) "And what is praised [is good]; for no
one praises what is not good. And what the enemy and the evil praise [is good]; for like
all others, they already acknowledge [its goodness]." (1.6.24)
People are more incline to believe those people who have good virtues. Issues
that are praise worthy could gain a person notoriety. When used effectively, that
notoriety can push a person political career forward. People want to be associated with
those who are considered to be virtuous. It put them in a good light when their associates
are being praised. It called "riding the bandwagon." By associating themselves with a
virtuous person, people tend to believe that you share the same beliefs as the person being
praised. Why else would a person of virtue associated with someone less virtuous? For
the associate seeking power, this could open new doors of opportunity for their career to
advance.
Parts of Happiness not listed
Spirituality
One area of happiness that was omitted is spirituality. Not to be confused with
religion, I mean spirituality in the sense that we are somehow connected with the
universe. There are many that do not believe in a one true God. Evolution is an example
of this idealism. Those that agree that man has evolved from some animalistic form
believe that some how the universe is responsible for man's creation. Many strive to
become connected with the universe. They claim to get energy from the universe that
empowers their lives. Those people that follow a spiritual belief truly believe that once
connected to the universe they are happy.
There are people lobbying to save the rain forests, to prevent globe warming and
to protect the planet in which we live. To appeal to the conscience of the spiritual
believers, lobbyists must show them how it is advantageous to protect the earth and its
natural resources. For those who feel a connection to the planet, one could show how the
destruction of our natural resources jeopardizes their happiness. Show spiritual believers
that unless something is done to remedy current course of actions, the happiness in which
they receive may cease to exist along with the rain forests and other natural resources.
Using this form of deliberative rhetoric can gain support for green peace issues across the
world.
Religion
Those that have strong conviction in religious beliefs are adamant that true
happiness comes when you serve Jesus Christ and Jehovah God. Some of these religious
followers try to separate themselves from the views of the world fearing that many of the
non-followers are destined to eternal damnation.
The long time debate over abortion is a forum that constantly competes religious
views with political views. Those arguing for pro-life base their belief on bible practices.
Some politicians compare abortion to murder, arguing that it violates one of the Ten
Commandments. Also arguing that many doctors and women that chose to go through
with abortions are playing God, by deciding whom lives and who dies. Political groups
and candidates for offices that are running on the pro-life platform uses this strategy
hoping to sway the votes of the religious community in their favor.
Morals and Ethics
Good morals and ethics are areas that I believe would be a needed addition to
Aristotle's definition of happiness. The lyrics in many of the songs today are of a
sexually explicit, demeaning, racial and violent nature. Although this form of speech is
protected by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution, it isn't a moral and/or ethical
form of behavior. People have protested the lyrics of songs for years because of the
possible implications that it has on our youths. However, many of the producers of this
material are not concerned with the moral and ethical implications.
Protestors such as Delores C. Tucker have lobbied against the controversial lyrics
for years. Citing artists like Tupac Shakur and NWA, saying that their music has
contributed to the violent nature of teens in America. Although she was unable to
prevent the lyrics from being released, her work has help create parental advisory label
for music with explicit lyrics. Also she was successful in getting Time Warner to refrain
from distributing music with controversial lyrics. This constitutes a win for both sides.
The lyrics remain protected under the first amendment and Mrs. Tucker has limited some
exposure of the lyrics to under age listeners, therefore providing some happiness to both
sides.
Education
Darwin's theory is that the strong shall prevail over the weak, in many cases
education gives you the advantage needed to prevail. Education separates the strong
from the weak or average. It gives them a sense of superiority and separatism. People
are more confident about themselves when they can exert their intelligence over others.
As shallow as it may seem its reality. We are happy when we know that we are smarter
than others are. We declare our strength and their weakness, proclaiming victory over the
less intelligent.
Those people who are highly educated have the knowledge needed to run for
political office. Education is needed in this area to be able to relay the message to
potential voters. Political candidates that are educated and knowledgeable of the issues
that concern the voters are more likely to prevail over those who are less knowledgeable
of the voters concern. Aside from it actually taking place, no one knowing want to elect
an incompetent person into office. To take care of the needs of the public, we want to
elect officials that are competent, those who are able to satisfy the needs of the public,
which in return creates happiness for the politician and the supporters.
Happiness and Deliberative Rhetoric
Aristotle defines deliberative rhetoric as speech that persuades an audience to do
that which is advantageous or to dissuade against that, which is disadvantageous.
Deliberative rhetoric is useful in areas that will provoke change. If there is no
opportunity for change, there is no need for deliberative argument. This form of
argument focuses on events that are of the future, that which is to come, not the past.
Things that are able to change or improve have futuristic existence.
Aristotle connects happiness with deliberative rhetoric applying that, which is
advantageous. All people are concerned with the things that are advantageous to them.
These things presumably make us happy, which is considered to be the primary goal of
man. For a deliberative argument to take place, the speaker must be cognizant of what
makes the audience happy or what it is that they do not prefer. Once this is realized, the
speaker may be able to persuade or dissuade the audience in a particular course of action.
Trying to dissuade the audience from a course of action that is advantageous is not an
admitted practice of deliberative rhetoric by Aristotle. Hence, it must be the primary
motive of the speaker to present issues that are in the audience's favor. Once the listener
perceives that he or she will receive advantages by following the course of action
provided by the speaker, he or she will receive a sense of increased happiness.
In the political arena this form of rhetoric can be used to sway potential voters to
elected candidates into office. Those candidates that platforms coincides with that of the
people are persuaded by the candidate that it would be advantageous to them to elect
them as their official. This possibly gets the candidate elected and the voters concerns
addressed.
People seeking support from others on certain issues may prove to potential
supporter that it would be in their best interest to support them and the claims. Bills are
passed into laws this way. Statutes are created and/or overturned in this manner. People
lobbying for change, all can prove how one course of action may be disadvantageous and
that their concerns would be advantageous. Using deliberative rhetoric can gain a person
or group many powerful friends that can make changes in their lives that would make
them happy.
Deliberative Speech
The setting of my speech is outside of the City Hall building in Atlanta. I am
speaking to concerned citizens and media about the current workers compensation laws
governing Georgia's workers and employers. I am lobbying to get the current laws
changed.
I would like to welcome you all here today. Many of you are employees of the
government, media or some other entity. Like myself, many of you are working to
provide a better life for yourself and your family. You put in your forty plus, every week,
so that you and your family can have some sort of security, some sort of happiness, some
sort of future. Like myself, many of you invest your monies in investments that you hope
will secure your retirement, in investments that you hope will provide funds for your
children's college tuition, in investments that you hope will give your family financial
security. A lot of us depend heavily on the jobs we have. Without the monies we make
from these jobs, some of us would be on government assistance. Some of you even
invest in the companies that you work for, believing that your portfolios are diversified
enough to suit your financial needs. We do this because we believe in the companies that
we work for. We would go as far as to say that we have job security.
Like you, I too believe that my job at the chemical plant, my future, my family's
future was secure. I quickly found out that this was a horrendous myth. After being
injured on the job where I was covered with a hazardous chemical, suffering with burns
to my eyes and inhaling a large amount of vapors, I was laid off. As a result of the
accident, I now live with R.A.D.S. a form of asthma, and low tearing in my eyes. After
four years of loyal service, I was sent a letter via Fed Ex, terminating my employment
with an offer of $2600.00, and a waiver form waiving all rights to file claims against the
company for injuries.
While I was still working for my former employee, I did see several doctors for
my injuries. After my doctors stated that I had received permanent injuries, the company
stop payment to my doctors and forbade me to see anyone outside of the company's
doctor. After numerous visits to the company's doctor they would not diagnosis my
illness. Instead they insisted that I was better and able to work. Well R.A.D.S. is short
for reactive airway dysfunction syndrome, meaning that my lungs and bronchial tubes
when irritated would constrict and cause me to have an asthma attack. With one of the
irritants being the chemical that I was exposed too, and other chemicals, the company's
doctors sent me back to work in an environment that was now extremely hazardous to my
health.
I decided to get legal help to prevent this from happening. I secured legal
assistance, yet due to Georgia's laws, I am bound by the decision of the company's
doctors. Because of Georgia laws, companies have sole right in choosing the doctors that
injured employees are allowed to see and at their discretion, they can refuse their own
doctors if they are not satisfied with the outcome. Georgia's worker's compensation laws
are not here to help the injured. They limit you the injured employee, to seeing only the
company's doctor. Where you were able to see your primary doctor, the doctor that's
knows you and your body, the doctor that cures what ails you, the doctor that keeps you
healthy, you are no longer allowed to see. The irony is your primary doctor is supplied
by the insurance that your company provides. The only way that the injured employee
can see their primary doctor is to pay for it themselves.
You may notice that I refer to these doctors as the company's doctors. I hope that
you all have grasped the double meaning. These doctors are not there for your best
interest. No, they are what they claim to be, the company's doctors. The company
supplies them and they are there to help the company. These doctors work for the
interest of your companies, which ends up in their best interest. Look at it this way, all of
the employees of a company must go to a particular doctor's facility for physicals and
other job related issues including injuries. This facility makes money every time the
company sends one of their employees to them. If the doctors do not provide actions that
are favorable to the company, the company takes their money and their abundance of
employees to a doctor that will be more favorable. Now does that seem to be in the best
interest of the injured employee's health? The one doctor that I was forced to see even
advertised to companies that they would lower their workers comp claims by 20%. How
can they make such a claim before they are confronted with the injuries? They went as
far as to specify a percentage decrease. This only implies that they will turn away claims
that are difficult to prove. You could be one of those claims.
You feel secure in your jobs now. What happens when you slip and injure your
back or some other limb? What happens when you get carpal tunnel syndrome from
typing? What happens when something on your job causes you not to take for granted
the air you breathe? If we allow Georgia's laws to stay in place, you all may become
unhappy, unhealthy, injured, welfare recipients struggling to make ends meet. Forget
about the investments you had; you'll have to drain them dry just to live. And your
children's college fund, well they may be able to find jobs that may help them, some less
favorable than others. Your financial happiness, well you'll be too concerned with the
pain that you must endure to worry about how miserably poor you've become.
What I encourage you all to do today is to sign the petition that I have on these
tables before you. These petitions are requesting that the Georgia legislation pass laws
that allow injured employees to see their doctor of chose or neutral doctors. To enact
laws that protected injured workers. These petitions can be the difference in you being
secure and happy in your jobs or unhealthy and unhappy in the welfare office. Like me,
you may say that this could never happen to you, I'm living proof that it could. Secure
your health, your family's health, your finances and the happiness that you work for.
Sign the petition to make Georgia better. Sign the petition that can make you better.
Thank you.