HUMAN FUNCTION: INTERPRETATION of LIFE
Since
the dawn of time people have thought about how they came into existence and
what their purpose in this hostile environment is.
Plato and his successor Aristotle were the first to adhere a function to human life. Plato believed that a just soul
and a just man would live well and therefore would be happy (Plato, 31). Aristotle claimed that human
function is living accordance with reason and distinctive human virtue
(Aristotle, 12).
Both of these were attempts to interpret life.
In this essay I will deal with whether there is a human function, whether we
need to fulfill this function in order to be happy and whether being virtuous
helps us become happy.
According
to Plato function of each thing is what it alone can do or what it does better
than anything else (Plato, 30).
Aristotle would have agreed likewise in this definition. So, for example the function of a
knife is sharpness or the function of a refrigerator is preserving food well. These kind of entities are made by
people for other peoples' convenience.
Therefore it is normal that the function of these kind of things are what they
are designed for, because the creators are human.
So a knife does not declare that the function of a knife is sharpness. Only a higher entity can determine
its' function.
Sheep are another good example.
If there is a sheep somewhere around the world who is as wise as Plato or
Aristotle, would probably say that the function of a sheep is living a just
life. However, in the
eyes of a human being the function of a sheep would be much more different and
simple.
It would probably be producing high amounts of milk and growing fat so it would
have more meat when it is killed.
This is again as a result of the fact that human are more advanced and more
intelligent than sheep.
So how come two mortal can determine the function of the human being in general?
And if they can determine the human function, wouldn't it be something similar
to the function the sheep attributed to themselves. For example, according to God the
function of human beings is worshipping him and praising him. Or maybe human beings are just
actors in a reality show that is videotaped to amuse other aliens. Then the function of humanity would
be acting in a nice and cute way.
Or maybe none of those creatures exist and "...Man
is nothing else but that which makes of himself."(Sartre). In any case, it is easy to see
that determining a human function that is valid for everyone is pretty hard. Also another question is why do
both of the philosophers insisted on a function that seems to be something
objectively good, such as justice? We have mentioned that function of each
thing is what it alone can do or what it does better than anything else. Human being is the only creature
that can build mass destruction weapons, so does that make the function of
human beings as destruction? Only a person can cheat in an exam so, does that
make the function of human beings deceit? The examples can go on and on. I think that while trying to
determine the human function Plato and Aristotle are approaching the subject
way too simplistic and are over generalizing by claiming that the function of
human beings is living a just life or living according to reason. I believe that there is no human
function that everyone can agree on.
We
have mentioned that determining a human function that encompasses all humanity
is impossible. Therefore everyone can reach happiness in different
ways. According to
Aristotle, there is a general agreement among everyone that happiness is sought
for its' own sake only (Aristotle, 5).
Therefore, happiness is the highest ranked good.
From his work we can conclude that while seeking for happiness the end will
justify the means.
A person can become happy just by helping the poor. Another person can be happy by
gambling in Las Vegas.
It does not matter whether the appetitive part or rational part is in control during
the process as long as happiness is achieved.
This might sound immoral, but it is the reality.
Any sane person would want to be happy.
Knowing or without knowing, we always choose our actions depending on the
happiness they will bring to us.
As you can see there is no secret distinct function that needs to be fulfilled
to reach happiness.
Every person from birth, by choosing their actions determine what the outcome
of their life will be.
Based on their actions they grow different habits and choose different lifestyles. So some take joy from earning
money, others become happy from deceiving.
Because there is no distinct human function, there is no need to fulfill a
specific function to be happy.
An objection can be raised about the morality of how happiness is achieved. It turns out that because
happiness is the highest good, there is no force to stop people from doing
wicked things to pursuit happiness.
This is where customs, regulations, laws, religious rules etc. come into play. They increase the penalty of doing
bad things to reach happiness.
For example, let's say that we offer 500,000 $ to a poor man to become a hitman. Even though he might find the idea
of killing someone revolting and highly immoral, he would eventually weigh in
the pros and cons of the offer.
He would roughly calculate how many years he would be able to feed his family
with the money he is offered, which would make him happy. He would also consider what his conscience says. If the pros weigh more he would
accept the deal.
Now if we put laws, customs etc.
into the equation we would see that the fear of punishment and the risk of being
condemned by the society would make that person less reluctant to accept the
deal and the amount of money offered would have to raise significantly. If we also take religious rules
into account, fear of eternal punishment and burning would probably put off
that person altogether from the deal.
Therefore, there are external factors that stop from doing whatever they want
to achieve happiness.
Being
virtuous is one of the many ways to become happy.
According to Plato the four must virtues are moderation, courage, wisdom and
justice.
It is highly probable that a person that has these traits is happier than a
person who has the opposite of these.
A coward person would let his fears control him.
Therefore, he wouldn't be able to endure the path of happiness. For example, a courageous person,
who is the master of his fears (Mark Twain) would be ready to fight with any
force that comes to steal his happiness from him.
A moderate person would be content with the things he has and thus will be
reluctant to stay happy.
A wise person would know what would make him happy. But does a person really have to
have all these traits to be happy? For example a person who is moderate but is
not wise can be happy.
Since wisdom is present in only a few number of people in a society this is a
common situation.
A carpenter who only knows how to mould wood can still be happy if he doesn't
meddle with other peoples' jobs.
As the saying goes "Ignorance is bliss" a person who does not know
much about the world would have less issues to get worried about and therefore
would be happy.
History is full of wise people who have committed suicide or lived miserable
lives. But, nonetheless a person who is wise is more likely to be happy than a
person who is unwise.
To
conclude, there isn't a human function that everyone can agree on. Therefore, people do not need to fulfill
a specific human function to be happy.
Being virtuous is only one of the many ways to become happy.
WORKS CITED
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, translated and
introduced by D. Ross, Oxford University
Press (1998)
Plato, The Republic, translated by G.M.A. Grube,
revised by C.D.C. Reeve, 2nd edition,
Hackett (1992)
No comments:
Post a Comment