...Wealth and happiness The human kind has always strived towards power, and wealth is one of the necessities for those who want this power. However, nowadays many seek wealth, because they want the freedom that money can grant, and thus become happier. Some people tend overrate how much happier they will get by becoming rich. That leads to the question: “Can you buy happiness?” 1. In the first text, David Brooks tries to explain the correlation between wealth and happiness. With Sandra Bullock’s experience as an example, he tries to prove his point that getting richer only will make you a little bit happier, as in the USA, where the country has gotten a lot richer during the last 50 years, but not happier than before. However, he does speak of the fact that as long you do not have the necessities covered; moving from being poor to middle-class will increase the happiness of a person’s life. In addition does Brooks speak of social objectives, such as being married or joining a group to commute, which are able to improve well-being as much as money can. He concludes his article by giving us his impressions of the subject. First, he believes interaction and relationships with other people is the source of economic and professional success. Second, he believes people overestimate the power of money, and that schools are preparing students too much for careers and not enough on dealing with social decisions. “But Will It Make You Happy” by Stephanie Rosenbloom is taking its stand...
Words: 1004 - Pages: 5
...A The views on the relation between wealth and happiness presented in text 1 and 2 are different. David Brooks, text 1, does not think that money has anything to do with happiness. In fact he contrasts being in a well-functioning marriage and other social relations with having a well-paid career. His main argument is that personal relations are much more important than having a great career and all the money that comes with it. Brooks makes an example with Sandra Bullock. Two important things happened to her in one month; she won an Academy Award for best actress – and afterwards came the news reports claiming that her husband is an adulterous jerk. In light of this Brooks argues that marital happiness is far more important than anything else in determining personal well-being. If you have a successful marriage, you will be reasonably happy. If you have an unsuccessful marriage, it does not matter how many career triumphs you record, you will remain unfulfilled. Therefore personal relations are much more important than having a great career and lots of money. Brooks concludes that people in general have a tendon to overestimate the value of money. Text 2, written by Stephanie Rosenbloom, has a different focus than text 1. Rosenbloom is looking at which way of spending your money gives most happiness. According to Rosenbloom it matters how we choose to spend our money – in fact she argues; if we choose to spend our money on something that we have wanted and thought about buying...
Words: 1045 - Pages: 5
...Wealth and Happiness 1. The first text “The Sandra Bullock Trade” says that marital happiness is more important than anything else in determining happiness. If you have a good marriage, then no matter how many personal setbacks you have, you will always be reasonably happy. If you do not have a good marriage the no matter how many career triumphs you gain, you will still be unfulfilled. It also says that the relationship between happiness and income is complicated for instance poor nations become happier as they become middle-class. But when they achieved the basic things, the income is not that important anymore. At the same time the text also says that if you join a group it makes you just has happy as if you double your income. In the end the text mentions two impressions, the first one is that from all the research you can see that economic and professional success exists on the surface of life and it comes from interpersonal relationships and that is way deeper and more important. The other impression is that we pay attention to the wrong things. We overestimate the fact that money will make our lives better. Text number 2 is “But Will It Make You Happy?” it starts with saying that consumers spend more and spend less than they have done in a long time. It also says that new studies of consumption happiness show that people are happier when they spend money on experiences than when they buy material objects. Yet the text says that scholars haven’t found out whether...
Words: 784 - Pages: 4
...Wealth, Happiness, and the National Economy, Is There A Paradox? Question Does a healthy national economy increase the happiness of the nation’s citizens? Background America is still recovering from the greatest recession sense the Great Depression and many countries around the world are now struggling with bad economies, unemployment, and massive debt. But why are governments so concerned about the economy? Governments care because it is believed that a better national economy leads to a better quality of life for the nation’s citizens. So, governments spend billions of dollars as an attempt to help the nation’s economy grow, which should lead to a better life for the nation’s citizens. This seems like it has good intentions, but many governments borrow the money they use for this spending and that only creates new problems. In the United States, the total debt is greater than its total economic output, and this debt will only hinder future and long term growth. On top of all that, the idea that a better national economy will make the citizens happier overall contradicts the idea that money doesn’t buy happiness. Does this mean that money actually does buy happiness, or does it mean that the economy doesn’t have anything to do with people’s happiness? Some regions are poorer than the United States and yet are happier, an example is Latin America. Other richer countries, like the United States, Japan, and China have had great economic growth over the past few...
Words: 2981 - Pages: 12
...of the views on the relation between wealth and happiness presented in texts 1 and 2. David Brooks who is the narrator in texts 1 telling us of how wealth is nothing compared to the relationship with other people. Out of some studies that have been made it has been proven that most people get more happiness by socializing with others then making lots of money. David Brook does not think that money has anything to do with happiness. He means that marital happiness is more important than anything else. It doesn’t matter how successful you are or how many triumphs you record career. It is the personal relations there are much more important than having a great career with lots of money. In this text David Brook makes an example with Sandra Bullock. Two important things happened to her in one month. Sandra won an Academy Award for best actress and afterwards came the news reports claiming that her husband is an adulterous jerk. David argues that marital happiness is more important than anything else in determining personal well-being. If you just have a successful marriage, you will be happy immediately. Text 1 ends with that personal relation are much more important than having a great career and lots of money. The relationships are the most important of all. Text 2 written by Stephanie Rosenbloom is more different then text 1. Text 2 has another focus. Stephanie Rosenbloom is looking at which way of spending money gives the most happiness in people’s life. According to Stephanie...
Words: 372 - Pages: 2
...THE RELATION BETWEEN WEALTH AND HAPPINESS A1: The articles The Sandra Bullock Trade and But Will It Make You Happier? both dis-cuss the relation between wealth and happiness, and it doesn’t require much to figure out, that these articles agree that happiness doesn’t depend on wealth in general. But as The Sandra Bullock Trade nearly refuses any connection between the two and even states that “if you have an unsuccessful marriage (…) you will remain significantly unfulfilled” (p. 2), But Will It Make You Happier? points out that even though happiness isn’t dependent on income, your buys will influence your mood. The Sandra Bullock Trade acknowledges that poor people are generally unhappier, but the article also claims that as long as your basic needs are fulfilled, money makes no difference. This is probably the biggest disagreement between the articles, as But Will It Make You Happier? is somewhat more capable of differ-entiating the dilemma. Instead of just having a one-tack mind, the article focuses on both the pleasure that money can bring, but it also declares how we are more likely to find joy when we buy social activities than when we buy material objects. A2: The Sandra Bullock Trade catches your attention from the very beginning. The headline itself makes you want to read it, because a celebrity like Sandra Bullock is a person that will instantly catch your attention whether you want her to or not. Another means, which The Sandra Bullock Trade uses, is to turn...
Words: 742 - Pages: 3
...essay, I will argue for why this objection is unsound and does not prove that hedonism is false. Axiological hedonism is the philosophical theory that is based on the idea that the only thing in this world that is intrinsically good for its own sake is happiness. This is different from the theory of psychological hedonism, which says that the only thing humans are physically able to desire for its own sake is happiness. First developed by Epicurus and later revised by John Stuart Mill along with many others, the theory of axiological hedonism uses a distinction between what philosophers call instrumental goods and things that are intrinsically valuable to illustrate its claim. Instrumental goods are any things in the world that are valuable because of the good things they bring about. Things that are intrinsically valuable on the other hand, are things that are inherently good for their own sake. Axiological hedonism claims that happiness is the only thing that is intrinsically valuable. The argument for axiological hedonisms is roughly as follows: 1. Happiness is the only thing we desire for its own sake. 2. Something is good (for us) for its own sake only if we desire it for its own sake. 3. Therefore, happiness is the only thing that is good for its own sake. One of the major objections towards hedonism involves the idea of looking at life trajectories. The objection attacks the part of hedonism that relates to the quality of...
Words: 1669 - Pages: 7
...Happiness is important than wealth How can I choose?Wealth or happiness?It is the normal phenomena among people who is difficult to choose.Although there are many people think that wealth is better than happiness. I think different people have different idears about this topic.But in our group opinion,we would choose the second one, happiness. The reason is that people cannot do anything without the happiness.To be honest,no matter what you rich or poor,happiness is the first thing in our life.However,many people think if they have a lot of money,they can buy everything which they want,as far as I am concerned,I admit things have its own value and it also could make our quality of life become more better,at the same time we cannot buy love,friendship,espcially happiness,whether you believe or not.I realize that if people onle have lots of money,he ignores his relationship,without friends,lover and family.How can he change?Just a lonely people in the world.,nobody would pay attention to you,you have to go work ,go shopping or whatever you do by youself.I want to know how your feeling is?I just to say lonely people without happiness cannot live in our society. A successful businessman, one of my father's friends, devoted himself to his business. He works from morning to night every day. There is no weekends in his mind. He often says, "I must earn much money so that I can get what I want. "Lately, he is ill. Though he has a lot of money, he can do nothing but lie in the hospital's...
Words: 425 - Pages: 2
...They say that money guarantees happiness, but in my opinion the poor can be just as happy as rich people and be even more content with their lives. Money makes the world go round. As the most significant sign of wealth, it is no wonder many people have devoted themselves to the pursuit of money. It is commonly believed that money is the ultimate form of happiness and it is believed that people who are without wealth can never match the level of happiness of the wealthy. In simple words, they say that happiness is proportional to wealth. People generally quote the examples of big movie stars, celebrities and the elite and the amounts of wealth they amass. A large number of people follow and idolize these people due to the size of their wealth. Most people then aspire to be rich and famous in life too. Then they use examples of people living in third world countries to contrast the levels of happiness between them and the elite. People would almost certainly believe at face value that these celebrities, through their online blogs and social media, are experiencing genuine happiness although this is not always the case. People often argue that people who are bare bone poor are not happy. They say that such people have to constantly worry about their food and shelter and don’t have the resources or rather have anything to be happy about. Even in our own daily lives we see that the affluent individuals have means to fulfil their materialistic desires and it would certainly seem...
Words: 669 - Pages: 3
...Zach Peters PHIL 220 April 10, 2015 Essay 2 Neil Levy’s article goes into depth on the controversial philosophy of money and its effect on happiness. Contrary to popular belief, Levy states that national surveys provide data that suggests money has very little effect on overall happiness. In this essay, I am going to analyze Levy’s article and explain why and how he believes money is of little importance in achieving overall well-being. I am also going to attempt to find correlations between income and happiness that Levy thinks may have significance in answering this philosophical question. My hopes are to find an alternative understanding of these correlations that the author may not have taken into consideration during his research. First, it is important for me to identify the possible scenarios that Levy puts on the y-axis. Happiness, being the underlying measurement, is affected by a variety of factors. Levy believes that in poorer countries, comfort and stress are thresholds that control happiness to a certain extent. The extent is to whether or not they have enough money to achieve the basic needs of life. For example, a roof over your head and enough food to survive. If these basic needs are met, money has little to no effect on their happiness. Along with comfort and stress, he discusses adaption and contentment as important factors that are effected by income. People seem to adapt to rises in the economy but fail to adapt when they experience a fall. During falls...
Words: 923 - Pages: 4
...Does money bring us happiness? Sharon Bogley is an author whom writes about science for publications such as The Wall Street Journal and Newsweek. Accordingly to her the correlation between wealth and happiness is very complex. It all depends on the situation that they are in. Bogley believes that once basic needs are met then other stuff such as social relationships and satisfaction at work become more important in life. Bogley provides many examples of different situations in her passage, “Money and Happiness” for instance; economists believe that more money you have, the happier you must be. The question then arises is the economist bias? Since his or her job is revolved around the effect and worth of money, it may influence his views between the relationship of money and happiness. This example is very situational because he or she is obviously going to favor money equals happiness for the reason that without the presence of money his or her job is meaningless....
Words: 493 - Pages: 2
...presented in Ch. 6, explain what researchers mean by the paradox of affluence. Explain how the research on happiness and wealth relates to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. The term “paradox of affluence” explains the disparity that has developed over the last 40 to 50 years in America between material well-being and psychological well-being (Baumgardener & Crothers, 2009). While the American family is now making more income than ever before, the amount of happiness has not also increased. Leading to ask the question, can money buy happiness? Research on happiness and wealth indicates money does not buy happiness (Baumgardner & Crothers, 2009). The unmet basic needs in life can easily be blamed on lack of wealth and cause depression, stress, anxiety, and unhappiness. Yet if you were to ask anyone what one thing in their lives brings them the most happiness, most would not answer it would be any kind of relation to money or wealth, rather it would be love, family, or health (Baumgardner & Crothers, 2009). When we consider how happiness and wealth relates to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs the lack of wealth can lead to unhappiness when basic needs are not met. One could also wonder if happiness is achieved when all levels of Maslow’s hierarchy are met. One could also wonder if complete happiness can be achieved if just basic needs are met. For most people I believe happiness can be achieved when basic needs are met and they are not wealthy. These people value money for taking...
Words: 330 - Pages: 2
...Assignment A: 1. Give an outline of the views on the relation between wealth and happiness presented in texts 1 and 2. In text one, David Brooks presents that marital happiness is the utter most important when we pin down personal welfare. He also tells us wealth is nothing compared to personal relations, such as marriages, with studies to stand behind his statement. However, he also states that the relation between wealth and happiness is questionable. He believes assumes this because of the fact that, once you have the essentials required for a well-being, the association between higher income and happiness is poor. Brooks windups text one by saying that personal relations are more important than material goods but also adding that we people weigh wealth too highly, as the way of accomplishing happiness. In text two, Stephanie Rosenbloom presents that here is a definite association between wealth and happiness. Nevertheless, according to Rosenbloom there are things, which makes you happier than others. For example, spending gravy on adventures will bring more happiness than squandering money on material goods - which we buy to outshine the neighbours. We become happier spending money on experiences because we are most likely not going to identify our experiences with others compared to material goods. 2. How does David Brooks engage the reader in text 1? Give examples from the text. “Two things happened to Sandra Bullock this month. Frist, she won an Academy Award...
Words: 786 - Pages: 4
...In this book, “A shorter of Summa”, the idea of happiness is well developed but at the theological and philosophical scale. In this book, the world has had as many theories of happiness as there are people that inhabit it with such varying opinions of what it takes to make humans the happiest. In this book the philosopher Saint Thomas Aquinas explained his view of theological perspective as compared to philosophical perspective. He compares wealth, honors, fame, power and pleasure that lead happiness. Talking about wealth, Saint Thomas says on (Kreeft 132-133): “It is impossible for man’s happiness to consist in wealth”, this assertion means that natural wealth should serve to replace the natural wants. According to “The Shorter Summa”, all things are below man and have been made for him. Another fact is about honor that is not a way to achieve happiness either according to Aquinas. Because by achieving honor for the sake of being honored is not noble, as I said in the discussion sheet in class. Aquinas said about this assertion that honor is external whereas happiness is internal and also states that honor can come from happiness but not the reverse. Another example that Aquinas uses to explain what happiness is not is the praise of being well-known. Because when someone want to praise his own personality the reason of doing so is happiness and want all other people be aware of his personality. This is probably the easiest to get a mental grasp of, especially in today’s society...
Words: 268 - Pages: 2
... Eudaimonia is what everyone strives to be. Aristotle (384 BC-322 BC) believes that happiness is the highest or central good in human life and is what we all aim for. Happiness is the ultimate end we all aim for, as it is the end in and of itself. Unlike, for example, going to the gym to work out and the end goal is being healthy, feeling, and looking better. This is not the end of the means of working out. In being healthy after working out, you lead yourself to living a longer life, and there is another end goal after this. What Aristotle tries to reach or answer in Nicomachean Ethics, is how to reach eudaimonia. “Nonetheless, happiness evidently also needs external goods to be added, as we said, since we cannot, or cannot easily, do fine actions if we lack the resources …” Aristotle believes that external goods such as wealth, power, and friends are all used to reach eudaimonia. We need external goods such as these in order to succeed and prosper in our endgame of reaching happiness, as it will be extremely hard without these goods. Aristotle deems that happiness needs to have prosperity or wealth, opulence, luxury, and the good life in order to be achieved. As prosperity tends to be associated with success and affluence, some people identify happiness as good fortune. This good fortune has results from favorable outcomes, good luck, destiny, and fate. Other people associate happiness with virtue. Virtue is the way people act in showing high moral standards. This focuses...
Words: 857 - Pages: 4
