English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I got asked this question and it's a real toughie so I wanted to see what your opinions are.

2007-03-19 08:47:58 · 8 answers · asked by Jerry 3 in Social Science Psychology

8 answers

everyone has a different idea of what happiness is and by what means they should pursue it. when two people or factions of people disagree on a singular topic (lets say religion, politics, civil rights) it is inevitable that the pursuit of my happiness will eventually infringe on someone Else's and vice versa. the more passionately we feel about certain rights, morals, ethics, beliefs the more likely we are to abandon "peace" in an attempt to preserve our own view of the world while simultaneously trying to convince others that ours is the only path. The only way mankind could find peace and happiness is to "live and let live" i have my views and you have yours, i respect your boundaries and you respect mine, nobodies right, nobodies wrong. the gist of what Lennon was trying to say in "imagine". look how many Christians in yahoo answers bring Jesus and god into every question and condemn people for having opinions, tell them there going to hell. not quite joy and peace. stop living by the word and live by the message. this rant has gone on to long. apologies. selah.

2007-03-19 09:09:02 · answer #1 · answered by uncle82jr 2 · 0 0

I guess that the glib answer is that everyone wants those things but on their own terms ... or, being somewhat more serious, that rather a lot of people only feel 'happy' if they also feel that they're succeeding rather better than anyone else.

There's a wide variety of human motivations, of which wanting happiness is only one: there's also the need to achieve, and the need for approval, and the need to belong to a group. Also, there's a piece of psychological wisdom that says that we deal with our neuroses by moving (i) towards, (ii) against, or (iii) away from other people, and each of these has the capacity to produce misery and conflict.

Modern political and economic thought has been influenced (some would say over-influenced) by Game Theory. Part of game theory involves studying what happens when people are placed in positions where they have the choice of competing or co-operating with one another. In the short term (emphasis on *short term*) people can best be certain of achieving their own aims by competing - or even cheating - the other. This is the theory which underlies a lot of economics from Friedman onwards, and we can see its effects all around us. Unfortunately what the game theorists forgot to include is that in the long term this strategy of competing simply leads to others competing and the size of the communal cake is reduced. (You only have to look at any issue where it's in the communal interests of all nations to cooperate, but any nation can make a gain for itself by competing - see global warming, for example).

So although the best long-term strategy is trust, cooperation, and therefore happiness, peace, and joy, it takes a great deal of personal and political skill to make sure that it happens. And over the years we've come to reward leaders who offer us just that. Probably the last time that people behaved otherwise on a global scale was the Marshall Plan in post-war Europe (you could make a case for the Cuba Missile Crisis, and for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa) but you don't need to study those too hard to see what a lot of darned hard work went into them; and nowadays anyone who advocated measures like these would be arguing against the conventional wisdom.

I hope that helps. It's a highly condensed version of some complex stuff, but that's the essence of it.

2007-03-19 09:10:59 · answer #2 · answered by mrsgavanrossem 5 · 0 0

I think there is so much misery and conflict in the world because of the fact that everybody wants happiness, peace and joy they will do what ever they see fit to get it!

But thats just my opinion!

2007-03-19 09:28:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

That's a big assumption that everyone wants this peace but perhaps this peace may not be reached without understanding what the pursuit of power is all about.Even on a small scale think of you family , hopefully you love each other somewhat but yet there's conflicts.Watch little children play as innocent and beautiful as they are they still fight like little hellions.

2007-03-19 09:06:14 · answer #4 · answered by Sally M Ander 1 · 0 0

Unfortunately, peace, happiness, and joy take a lot of work to accomplish. Most people on this earth are too lazy to really work towards those goals. Thank you and may GOD come soon to right the wrongs that have been done on this earth.

2007-03-19 09:05:56 · answer #5 · answered by cookie 6 · 0 0

Because if we ourselves cannot have peace and joy then no one should have it either. We humans are the most envious species on the planet.
You need to be a Mother Teresa to care about humanity's happiness, something most of us just cannot muster.

2007-03-19 14:13:40 · answer #6 · answered by flugelberry 4 · 0 0

good Lord! Rotter, suspended? That, i could say, is an absolute bathe, a shame to hang-out Yahoo until the tip of its days and, regrettably, a victory for the thought police, self-righteous busy-bodies and questions nazis who prowl this internet site. there is yet little we can do to have Rotter's account reinstated i'm afraid, Hopkins skills are aplenty yet regrettably do no longer boost to aetheric penal complex-breaking. So the undesirable fellow will purely could sit down out his suspension, no longer of too long a era i'm hoping. And as for the plebs, the dullards and the simpletons who've arranged this sorry affair~ I clearly desire you're happy with yourselves. What harm became being accomplished to you by using somebody asking questions that, on an analogous time as admittedly did no longer have a element, even with the undeniable fact that provided some lots-mandatory humour and brightened the days of many? in addition to, who're you to verify what makes a 'valid' question? And in case you think of you're severe and good adequate to realize this, in case you notice one that by using your 'esteemed judgement' isn't 'valid', quite than rfile it, why no longer purely enable it bypass? i'd post which you are the form of human beings who see somebody being mugged in the line or drowning and stand idly by using in view which you think of 'it is not any longer something to do with me'. you certainly look to lack any shred of decency judging by using your habit in this talk board. you're fully despicable and if I chanced on you in the line i'd be sorely tempted to make you sense discomfort.

2016-12-15 03:53:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Almost everyone is a hypocrite.

2007-03-19 08:52:12 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers