#21- Genuine happiness consists not in pleasurable feelings

[izzy_tingles]

Could we use diagramming to get to the correct answer? For instance I'm thinking of the three valid some/most inferences, where one inference is:
Premise: A B
Premise: A C
Inference: B C

So, in this case, it would be:
H = happiness, AC = approval of one's character, MV = morally virtuous life
Premise: H AC
Premise: H MV
Inference: AC MV

This inference would match B? I know this isn't an exact match, but I wonder if this principle is correct. Thank you!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Izzy,

I think you are trying to push for conditional reasoning where it really isn't. You could say the good life morally virtuous. That doesn't really help us get to the right answer. The other phrasing is less than conditional, using words like "tends to" in order to link concepts. A conditional statement has to be a very strong relationship. If you know the sufficient is true, you know the necessary is true EVERY time. Anything less is not conditional, and cannot be diagrammed with the all arrow.

Hope that helps!

[jk3530]

I understood that the argument's gap is between approving of one’s own character and projects and leading a morally virtuous life. But I was thrown off because the conclusion seems to make two distinct claims: (1) that a happy life is not one of material well-being, and (2) that it is a morally virtuous one. So I thought either point could be the one that needed to be supported.

I didn’t choose B because I initially thought it was going in the wrong direction. It says that people who approve of their character and projects tend to lead morally virtuous lives. But I thought it should say the reverse—that people who lead morally virtuous lives tend to approve of their own character. Also wouldn't it be required that ppl w/ material well-being do not necessarily approve of their character and projects?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi jk,

The conclusion is making two claims, such as contrasting what the good life does and does not entail, and the answer could have supported either one. In practice, though, it's more likely that the answer will focus on the what the good life does entail (a morally virtuous life), as the other part is really just included to distinguish the ideas.

A reasonable prephrase would link approval of one's character to morally virtuous lives, which helps identifyng Answer B as correct. Of course, it is important to keep an open mind when reading the answers as the correct answer won't always match your prephrase, even if the prephrase is a good one.

If you haven't already done so, I'd recommend reading Charlie's (Post #15) and James's (Post #18) earlier posts.

They can be found here:

viewtopic.php?f=482&t=10647&start=10

As James mentions in his post, the order of Answer B is correct because you want to go from the premise to the conclusion, not the other way around. In other words, you want an answer that basically states "people who have characteristic A (which is in the premise) tend to have characteristic B (which is in the conclusion)."

I agree that the argument does assume that material well being does not always guarantee approval of one's character and projects. Otherwise, the distinction "not ... as a life of material well-being" wouldn't really make sense. Just to be clear, however, that is different than what Answer E states.

[misheleleee]

Hi! I got this question wrong by chooseing E over B. I see how B is correct but I'm having some trouble eliminating E.

I tried using the Negation technique, which led to E. The negation, "Material well-being does increase approval of one's character and projects" made me think that if this were true, then it is possible that the good life can be understood in terms of material well-being.

Why is this thinking incorrect?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi misheleleee!

The conclusion of this stimulus brings in new material--a "morally virtuous life," for example, doesn't occur in the premises. The conclusion is that the happy life tends to be the good life, understood as a morally virtuous life.

We therefore want an answer that bridges the gap between the premises and the new element. From that perspective, answers (A) and (B) might both seem like contenders, because they are the only two answer choices that mention a morally virtuous life. That is missing in answer choice (E), which prevents it from bridging the gap.

Even if we suppose that material well-being does increase one's sense of approval of one's character and projects, that doesn't make the argument fall apart that the happy life tends to be the good life, understood as a morally virtuous life. It's possible that material well-being does increase this sense of approval but nevertheless that the happy life still tends to be the good life understood as a morally virtuous life. We can consequently eliminate (E) since its negation doesn't make the argument fall apart.

[zebrowski]

It's possible that material well-being does increase this sense of approval but nevertheless that the happy life still tends to be the good life understood as a morally virtuous life.

I'm not sure I agree.

To my mind, the phrase "consists in" is ambiguous. It is not clear if on this occasion it is a necessary condition indicator or a necessary and sufficient condition indicator.

If you read it as a necessary condition indicator (genuine happiness one's sense of approval of one's character and projects), you'd be in the right, Luke.

But if you read it as a necessary and sufficient condition indicator (genuine happiness one's sense of approval of one's character and projects), you'd be in the wrong.

If material well-being did increase one's sense of approval of one's character and projects, it would lead to genuine happiness (because, by hypothesis, genuine happiness one's sense of approval of one's character and projects). So material well-being genuine happiness.

Now, we know that the good life is not a life of material well-being. I take it to mean that "the good life" and "a life of material well-being" are disjoint sets with no elements in common. But if that was so, the happy life could not be the same thing as the good life. "The happy life" would have elements in common with "a life of material well-being" (since material well-being genuine happiness), but "the good life" would not.

This is why answer choice (E) strikes me as a pretty good Defender Assumption. Indeed, I liked answer choice (E) better as a Defender Assumption than answer choice (B) as a Supporter Assumption.

What do you think?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi zebrowski,

I agree that "consists in" can be trickier to interpret than more strait-forward conditional indicators. Looking up the definition of this term, some synonyms are "lies in," "is embodied in," and "is characterized by." What these phrases suggest to me is that what follows them is an essential (i.e. necessary) element or quality to the subject in the sentence.

For example, the statement:

"Success consists in hard work and a bit of luck" would mean that these two terms (hard work and a bit of luck) are necessary for success but not necessarily sufficient to guarantee success.

You wrote:

Now, we know that the good life is not a life of material well-being. I take it to mean that "the good life" and "a life of material well-being" are disjoint sets with no elements in common.

I don't believe that is the correct interpretation based on the stimulus. The stimulus states that "the good life is understood not ... as a life of material well-being but rather as a morally virtuous life" (my emphasis). The gist of this statement is that a life of material well-being does not constitute the good life (in and of itself), but that does not necessarily mean that having a life of material well-being is incompatible with having a morally virtuous life. In other words, according to the argument, the measure of whether one has a good life is whether one has a morally virtuous life and not whether one has a life of material well-being (contrary to what is usually understood these days).

Finally, even if material well-being does increase one's sense of approval of one's character and projects (the negation of Answer E), the conclusion can still hold that "the happy life tends to be the good life, where the good life is understood not ... as a life of material well-being but rather as a morally virtuous life" (my emphasis) because the emphasis is on the morally virtuous life as the key rather than the life of material well-being. In other words, even if material well-being helped one reach a morally virtuous life, it is the result of having a morally virtuous life that makes the life a good one and not the material well-being itself.

[zebrowski]

Thanks for a lightning-fast reply!

It occurred to me that you need to interpret "consists in" as a necessary and sufficient condition even if you like B more than E.

So you'd have :

Premise 1: Genuine happiness one's sense of approval of one's character and projects
Premise 2: The good life a morally virtuous life
Missing premise
Conclusion: The happy life tends to be the good life

If you added a missing premise that bridges the gap between the premises and the Conclusion (and also assumed that genuine happiness the happy life), you would have a valid argument.

Answer B does that by linking one's sense of approval of one's character and projects with a morally virtuous life:

If people who approve of their own character and projects tend to lead a morally virtuous life, genuine happiness (the happy life) tends to be the good life.

This way I also like B more than E.