Santorum’s Strange Definition of Happiness

At a recent campaign stop in Iowa, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum made a rather strange statement. When discussing the “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” clause of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, he said our founding fathers did not define “happiness” the same way we do. He said they defined happiness as duty and responsibility, rather than contentment or satisfaction. I find it hard to believe that happiness was ever defined that way. Even the archaic or obsolete definitions of the word have it meaning something more akin to good fortune.

By saying there’s no constitutional right to happiness as we know it, any majority of lawmakers could justify the outlawing of almost anything they didn’t agree with. That’s a dangerous slippery slope that I hope all voters will reject. I’m starting to think that Santorum, like many other puritanical, hard-line, law and order proponents, is always worried that someone, somewhere is having some fun.

Comments

[Steve]

The Greek word that usually gets translated as “happiness” is eudaimonia, and like most translations from ancient languages, this can be misleading. The main trouble is that happiness (especially in modern America) is often conceived of as a subjective state of mind, for exmple, “having some fun”.

According to Aristotle, happiness is a final end or goal that encompasses the totality of one’s life. Happiness refered to a life well-lived, a life rooted in truth. That is what happiness means, and that is what every man and woman has an inalienable right to pursue—a virtuous life.

It was not something that could be gained or lost in a few hours, like pleasurable sensations. It is more like the ultimate value of your life as lived up to this moment, measuring how well you have lived up to your full potential as a human being.

I’m starting to think that immature irresponsible citizens, like many other selfish greedy anarchists , are always worried that they may have to be accountable someday.