Duty to be Happy
The notion that happiness (or at least acting happy) is a debt we owe to all those in our lives and even to society at large is foreign to the vast majority of people. Yet, the more time I have devoted to writing and lecturing on this issue, the more I have come to realize that this is indeed the case. Ask anyone who was raised by an unhappy parent; ask anyone married to a chronically unhappy person; ask any worker whose co-worker is moody what their life is like and you will readily understand the moral obligation to be as happy as one can be.
I think this is a kind of funny way of talking. But it’s true that happy people are nicer to be around.
What do you make of this, Prager’s next and concluding paragraph?
Polls consistently show Republicans and religiously active Jews and Christians to be happier than Democrats and secular Americans. In light of the above, what does the preceding tell us about the good each group is likely to achieve?
Do you suppose Dennis Prager thinks secular Democrats have a moral obligation to become religious Republicans?
9 Comments so far
Leave a reply
I don’t know about that, but I’d bet he would say that they have a moral obligation to consider it! Maybe he’d settle for agreeing not to antagonize those who hold such beliefs…on the grounds that the rest of society benefits from their happiness and its fruit.
You mention that you think Prager’s assertion is a kind of funny way of talking, but only if you deny that we have some connection/responsibility for each other. Consider the wisdom in 1 Cor 12:26, which says “If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.” This recognizes our duty to suffer when our fellow man suffers. But the corollary, then, is that our suffering causes additional suffering. And I doubt that many dispute that we have a moral obligation to eliminate unnecessary suffering, especially if we have the opportunity to produce happiness instead.
Well, I find it funny because of the weird buck shifting of it. It’s kind of circular, or spiral. I have a duty to make myself happy SO THAT you are happy. But then why is it good for you to be happy? So that somebody else is happy? At some point, you need to say that it’s just good to be happy, period. At which point, it’s better to say that you should try to be happy because its good to be happy.
I don’t believe Prager says that moral obligation is the only/foundational arguement for happiness. I think he would agree that we should choose happiness just because “it’s just good to be happy, period.” (I might not like the way he phrases his statement about “Polls consistently show…”, but the point behind it is to recommend happiness as something beneficial.)
In addition to that arguement he notes that we do have moral obligations to each other in our various relationships; one of which (and it is often overlooked) is the duty to be happy.
I think it’s pretty clear that what Praeger is alluding to is what can be achieved thru an optomistic worldview. Maybe I’m wrong or maybe that’s so obvious that it needn’t be mentioned but that’s my guess.
I agree that he seems to be pointing to a connectin between optimism and happiness. The importance of this connection is far from obvious to many people. In fact, it’s quite counterintuitive. Martin Seligman’s Learned Optimism is deals with this. His findings are pretty much in line with this interpretation of Prager.
If ignorance is bliss, Republican Fundamentalists are orgasmic.
I believe it was Robert Lewis Stevenson, the author, who said that it was our duty to be happy. But you must try to read that as an esoteric statement, meaning that we must understand the “true” (esoteric) life to be happy.
Buy bargain deal online medications here - I can recommend it!