The Debate on Happiness and Freedom: Which is More Important? - Essay Sample

Introduction

The arguments that our most important value should be happiness or freedom, are both significant. In this debate, the matter is whether freedom is more of the effectual way to some "end" or is it happiness. It is also evident in the debate that both freedom and happiness are all values. In some logic, there can be an extremely minimal argument on a debate like this. There is a minimal dispute because the questions that arise from the most important value does not look to be any mutual discussion ground for individuals who disagree. Whether it is virtuous as an ending itself, freedom is virtuous and an important value regardless of whether it results in happiness or whatever else one values (Scalet and Arthur 609)

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Kant continuously reiterates that freedom is the fundamental value and not happiness. According to Kant, freedom is the most important value because it is the "inner value of the world," (Guyer and Nelson 110). He explains that freedom is the ground of human dignity and each normal nature. Happiness has no self-effectual worth because it is nature or luck's gift. The source of happiness is freedom, and it is what establishes its concordance and self-sufficiency. Therefore, Kant argues that happiness has no self-sufficient value, whereas freedom is the origin of happiness, no matter how bad the circumstance might be. Freedom as an essential value will control what one will establish as their happiness. Freedom is the basis of happiness because one can secure more happiness, but freedom value is essentially influential (Guyer and Nelson 110).

Nevertheless, Kant also declares that if freedom is used in a good way, it will have a value that is inner and necessary. Thus, it is a value condition of any other type of happiness or at least of the deservingness to be happy. This declaration suggests that one has an inherent satisfaction in the fact of their freedom that is more important and more secure and also very important than any other kind of satisfaction. According to Kant's view, there is dignity in the freedom that has a justification for its independence (Guyer and Nelson 114). Freedom also comprises of a great price since one thereby converts into the author of the virtuous in accord with their own perceptions. He argues that one's perception can multiply and extend afar animals' instincts.

Kant also suggests that freedom is also more important than happiness because freedom permits one to maximize and secure virtuous ways. He claims that since the virtuousness at issue seems to one that may be formed at least to some level by instinct, it would appear that it is essential for one to have happiness in cognizance. Kant also claims that the independence fact itself is an origin of a different dignity. Kant characterizes the different contentment one takes in as passive and active. He does not explain this argument but merely claims that one has an intellectual instead of a luxurious pleasure.

Disagreements arise when one asks if freedom is that virtuous regardless of whether it results in something else we value. Moreover, if this is the case, others ask how freedom is more valuable than other things like happiness. Despite the disagreement that arises from the questions, people do not realize that freedom is more of an important value than happiness (Scalet and Arthur 609). Both sides also agree that one takes greater pleasure in happiness. Thus, an individual is the author of their happiness, but freedom is the safest foundation of happiness.

For example, if one lived in a State with a governmental regime, they extremely disliked with no means of escaping and many of the things they dislike. However, the government has a re-education program, in which one believes that it might be effective and would bring happiness to the person despite the state's situation of politics. Would one be willing to apply for the program? Several individuals would not because they prefer not to be happy than to be fundamentally changed. Alternatively, again, if one was dissatisfied with their life the same as it was and had the opportunity to welcome the opening possibility of re-education. According to Steven and Arthur (609), one would not because they prefer freedom. Thus, freedom is the most important value than happiness.

Structural Problems

Sexism is a structural problem because it describes the ways the society's organization and precisely its subordinate people in institutions and groups grounded on their classification of sex (Guyer and Nelson 115). Structural sexism has caused significant variances in the income levels, political involvement, education, and civil rights of men and women. Structural sexism is also supported by the cultural sexism system that perpetuates theories about the modifications between men and women.

On other hand, Frye's theory of sexism is being used as a structural problem because she has an opinion that sexism should be systematic and to the general advantage of all individuals. She claims that the sexism locus is mainly in the framework or system, not in the precise act. She also says that the word "sexism" exemplifies economic and cultural structures that establish and enforce the rigid and elaborate patterns of sex-announcing and sex-marking. Thus, it divides the species into subordinates and dominators. Frye's theory of sexism also counts as a structural problem because her definition of sexism is broader than most definitions of sexism. It is broader in the logic that it focuses not on a person's actions, but an organization into which they does or does not (Benatar 6). Frye's theory of sexism also counts as a structural problem because it comprises the only subcategory of actions that faultily discriminate against individuals based on their sex.

Thus, it creates hegemonies. Frye even asks individuals to consider her cases, where if an organization is appointing a supervisor who will manage a group of male employees. A male supervisor has always managed these employees. Thus, it can hardly be denied that the candidate's sex for the job is related to the prospects of the candidate of moving successfully and smoothly into an operative working rapport with the supervisees. Therefore, Frey's theory counts because the case intends to reflect unfair biasness (Benatar 7). The unfairness consists of not only the different treatment of people, but the unfairness is based on an arbitrary attribute like sex. Frye finds this case problematic if a female is not hired. She argues that this will forage into a wider system in which women are disempowered. Thus, her theory of sexism counts as a structural problem.

A social problem is a condition that is social where a society's segment demonstrates to be expressively harmful to society members and in need of a solution. Racial discrimination is one of the social problems that might be similar to structural problems. Constantly, African Americans have reported noteworthy experiences of both individual and institutional ways of discrimination (Mooney et al. 274). They have been discriminated mostly in their workplaces and when interrelating with courts or police. The majority of African Americans also experience discrimination from individuals. Discrimination occurs from individuals when people make negative assumptions, racial slurs, and insensitive remarks regarding their race. When applying for jobs, for instance, their applications are rarely accepted, and when it comes to payment, they are rarely paid the full amount. Across various institutions, like hospitals, schools, and courts, African Americans are rarely treated in a fair manner.

Ethnic discrimination is also a social problem that might be related to structural problems. It might be similar to structural problems because when two or more ethnic groups interact, various interaction patterns occur. These interaction patterns include expulsion and genocide. These interactions between the groups are not only of discrimination but are also destructive. For instance, genocide is the deliberate, organized annihilation of people in a whole nation. In the 20th century, Nazi termination of 12 million individuals was led by Hitler. 6 million Jews were also exterminated in what was identified as Holocaust. In the early '90s, ethnic groups tried to eliminate parts of Bosnia's Muslims (Mooney et al. 275). These acts of genocide are clearly based on ethnic discrimination, which might be similar to structural problems.

Expulsion, on the other hand, occurs when the main group forces a minor group to vacate the country or to stay in selected country areas. For example, in 1830, there was an Act of Indian Removal that called for the eastern tribes' relocation to West Mississippi River (Mooney et al. 275). The movement lasted more than a decade and has been identified as the Trail of Tears. It was identified as the trail of tears due to the illness, death, harsh conditions of scare food because of being forced out of their own ancestral domains. Thus, a social problem that might be similar to structural problems

Works Cited

Benatar, David. The Second Sexism. Wiley-Blackwell, 2012, pp. 6-7.

Guyer, Paul, and Jonathan Nelson. Kant On Freedom, Law, And Happiness. Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009, pp. 110, 114-115.

Mooney, Linda A et al. Understanding Social Problems. Cengage, 2019, pp. 274-275.

Scalet, Steven, and John Arthur. Morality and Moral Controversies. Routledge, 2018, pp. 608-609.