I don't necessarily disagree with you, this is just what sounds reasonable to assume at the moment.
My question to the alternative is: What else should happiness be good for?

In everything that makes us modern humans happy, I can see a reason for why that would increase a primitive humans chance of survival.
And in many cases still does today.
Or rather the other way around: We are still around because what made us happy, is what made us survive.
I think that notion is called neo-darwinism.

You noted that a more comfortable lifestyle makes humans happy, and I agree. Maybe one of the most important ways primitive humans survived was by conserving energy. Whether that means to shun effort, to not be out of breath when danger approaches. Or to limit actions that require more nutrition, through the largest extent of human history, getting enough food was the biggest concern. So a primitive human, that is happy from conserving energy is likely to have successors.

So it looks to me as if the cynical view stands pretty firm. Please poke holes with other examples.



Yes, I meant the people around you. You are happy to be with your friends and family, because in the old times, having a strong tribe made you more likely to survive.

If by cynical you mean an attitude of scornful negativity, then I also don't believe that you are cynical in this regard. You're just using anthropological facts to aid you in the study of ethics.

Do you think that reproducing is a major part of being happy, because I'm not so sure that I want any children?

That's what I meant.
But I'm not sure if I consider that a study of ethics.
I was expressing my impression of the nature of happiness, and not whether that makes it good or bad.
If you want to hear my opinion on the ethical aspect of it, I would say happiness has little to do with right or wrong.

Ethics is not only about right and wrong, in the sense of how you should treat other people. It's also about how you should conduct yourself in order to live a good life.

That aspect of ethics has been clouded by deontology and utilitarianism but virtue ethics is making a come back.

When you're at your "friends" house and you have this feeling of love and "happiness" (whatever that is).

It always ends by the time you have to leave or go home, doesnt it? Instead you're filled with hate or frustration.

So, my parents tell me that instead of letting the sadness be you're normal state, you let the happiness be that... But that just clings wrong with me.

You make an illusion that you're life is good, but when you find out why you take em' you get more depressed.

I agree, but I don't understand how that is contradicting what I expressed. Please correct me if I misunderstand.
Deontology does not only guide your interactions with others, it guides every action.

Please explain. I don't fully see the difference between doing something because it's right and doing something because of virtues.

You said -- "But I'm not sure if I consider that a study of ethics.
I was expressing my impression of the nature of happiness, and not whether that makes it good or bad.
If you want to hear my opinion on the ethical aspect of it, I would say happiness has little to do with right or wrong."

I interpreted that as you saying that happiness has little to do with ethics, and I was saying that it does and it was a very important part of ethics before the debate between deontology and utilitarianism. Utilitarianism does, however, entail the happiness for the greatest number. Statements of value are underpinned by emotive forces, and so happiness is a good.

Well virtues are considered to be such because of their tendency or capacity for good outcomes. Right is the accordance of a decision or outcome with ultimate goodness (not just proximate goodness).

All right, but I disagree with you. The acquisition of happiness does not navigate morality.
For example murder would not be moral if it makes murderer more happy, and the victim didn't care.
Murder would however be moral in case of self defense.



So the point of virtue ethics is creating happiness, like consequentialism?
Does that mean that the ethical actions you make, define you as a person?

Well I agree that happiness is not synonymous with good actions, and so one cannot base their moral treatment of others on their individual happiness alone. In order for an action to be moral it must be universal and impartial.

The point of virtue ethics is not really to create happiness. The point is to build the moral character of the agent in order to better help guide their decisions and actions. Character ultimately does define who you are as a person.

If not happiness, what decides morality? Universal and impartial to what end?

So should we act morally to have a moral character or should we have the a moral character to act morally?

What is "the good"?

I would call that circular logic. What's the point?

Universal and impartial to the end that it achieves the good for all similar beings and valuers.

What is "the good"?

Good is being pleasant or appealing in experience.

:poke-eye:

What I wanted to get to the bottom of is what virtue ethics considers moral. You pretty much describe one relative term with another.
I don't quite get that. But I have not read up on it. What is the point of virtue ethics, if it's not happiness?
For consequentialists, it's all about happiness. And deontology does only cound the action itself, so it goes around that question. But what about virtue ethics?

aretaic [virtue] theories guide and assess what kind of person (in terms of character traits) we are and should be.

Alright, the reason I ask is that I might like virtue ethics.

It seems that the point of it is to define you as a person?
Which I would like. "I do this because it makes me a better person." "I don't do this because it would make me a worse person."

My question would be why building a morale character to guide "better" decisions is good.
You either need deontology or consequentialism to define what good is.

Yes, the main function of virtue ethics is to built the moral character of the person. It also guides the person when it comes to making decisions on how to treat other people (kindness and fairness for example).

The theory is that it will lead to good outcomes and happiness for the individual and for the collective society as a whole.

Wouldn't all decisions have the objective to build the moral character of the person?

Could you "amend" deontology instead of consequentialism with virtue ethics?

I don't know, but I doubt it. Virtue ethics deals with the outcome of certain types of conduct, so it is teleological.

Could you apply virtue ethics to dealing with actions themselves, and not their outcomes? I think so.
I don't know if it would still be virtue ethics. But it got to have a name. I don't believe I'm the first who thought of it.

And I'm not sure if consequentialism and teleological are the same thing.