Virtue and pleasure are fundamentally different, and one's happiness does not necessarily correlate with their moral standing. A malicious person can experience happiness while a virtuous individual may endure unhappiness, as exemplified by the life of doctors who may lack recreation despite deriving satisfaction from their work. Historical perspectives, such as those in the Federalist Papers, suggest that a state comprising virtuous, happy citizens leads to a thriving society. However, the idea arises that a nation might benefit from its citizens prioritizing personal well-being and pleasure, rather than solely moral 'goodness.' This perspective is increasingly being recognized in political discourse, with leaders advocating for policies that enhance overall well-being alongside economic metrics.
Happiness is a complex emotion and mental state that can be achieved through virtue or pleasure. But should it be for the good of the individual or society? Those in favor of virtue point to the Stoics and the Founding Fathers, saying you should strive for a life of moral virtue and rationality. Those in favor of pleasure say everyone should be able to experience it and define their sources of happiness. Now we debate: The Pursuit of Happiness: Virtue or Pleasure?
Arguing Virtue: Jeffrey Rosen, CEO & President of the National Constitution Center; Author of “The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America”
Arguing Pleasure: Roger Crisp, Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Oxford; Uehiro Fellow and Tutor in Philosophy at St. Anne's College, Oxford
Nayeema Raza, Journalist at New York Magazine and Vox, is the guest moderator.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices