Immanuel Kant was one of our greatest ethicists.
But he was not terribly concerned about happiness.
It is not that he downplayed its role in our lives. To the contrary. It seems he assumed we manage, without any philosophical assistance, to each find our own ways of being happy.
What need do we have for advice on happiness? Can't we tell for ourselves what works? Don't we find the friends we like? Can't we tell which jokes tickle us and which don't? We know how to spend a Saturday afternoon, a Saturday night. Thanks but no thanks, deep thinkers on happiness; we don't need your help - we know how to enjoy ourselves just fine.
Happiness was not, for Kant, the big deal it was to the ancient Greek ethicists. The ancient Greek "eudaimonists"* argued that only a good person could be (truly) happy. They defend their notion of true happiness against all comers. What other life will work out? Not one. They determined what ethics was by looking to what a (truly) happy person would do.
Kant? He thought we could ponder happiness, its ingredients, its pathways, as long as we'd like. We are not apt to find any deep insights. We certainly won't find morality there.
Kant, unlike the Greek eudaimonists, thought:
1. A non-revisionary, common sense definition of happiness worked fine (happiness is some combination of well-being and felt satisfaction).
2. Happiness should be classified as a "gift of fortune". Some of us are luckier than others when it comes to happiness, and this cannot be changed.
3. Virtue is good but not all that good. He gives virtue some due: "Moderation in affects and passions, self-control, and calm reflection are not only good for all sorts of purposes but even seem to constitute a part of the inner worth of a person."
Yet he continues, "but they lack much that would be required to declare them good without limitation (however unconditionally they were praised by the ancients); for without the basic principles of a good will they can become extremely evil, and the coolness of a scoundrel makes him not only far more dangerous but also immediately more abominable in our eyes."**
4. Happiness has its costs. Bring Kant a happy person, and he'll assume a certain "boldness and arrogance" has taken hold. Is he right about this? At our happiest times, in the years when things go well, do we begin to think of ourselves as the cause of things we surely deserve no credit for? Do we start to think our health is to our credit? Do we begin to think those with bad fortune deserve it? Do we get big heads? Does a change in fortune serve to open our eyes as to how narrow-minded we've been?
Ah. If so, then perhaps Kant is on to something.
For isn't it paradoxical for the happy to spend their energy judging and comparing themselves to the rest of us? You'd think they'd have better things (happier things) to do. So what gives?
Kant would say happiness needs to give. It isn't the be-all end-all of human existence. We are here to do more than chase it. If you want proof, get happy and see.
For more on Kant: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/
*Eudaimonia means happiness.
**The Greeks would complain, of course, that no one evil could have virtue.
