On Moral Authorities

[Ignorant]

1) No worries. I just appreciate your willingness to seek common understanding! I am saying that human happiness (understood in the classical sense of human fullness/perfection/fulfillment [a]) IS the universal goal of every human. It is what we are all trying to achieve, according to how we subjectively understand it. In other words, whatever any individual's goal turns out to be, it is THEIR interpretation of human fullness. It is the most abstract and general "end" for which all human actions are done. Think less "pleasure" and more "the meaning of life".

This seems like a semantic sleight of hand.  Happiness and fulfillment are not the same thing. [1] While humans may value fulfillment, it's not clear whether this valuation depends on something intrinsic to fulfillment [2], or whether fulfillment is desirable because of the absence of stress and anxiety in the state of fulfillment, and in states leading to it. [3] My theory of human behavior does not recognize a place in decision making for any "desire for fulfillment."  We have an aversion to states that are not fulfilling, but it's less clear whether we are motivated by the feelings which accompany fulfillment. [4]  Regardless, fulfillment doesn't equal happiness, which is another commonly presumed 'goal' which doesn't seem to motivate our moment-to-moment decisions. [5]

1) That's fine if that's how you'd like to use the terms. I am using them in the same way the classical philosophers and Catholic theologians up to at least Thomas uses the term happiness. I fully recognize that today the term has been reduced to different understandings, but I explicitly mentioned that I have been using the term in the classical sense (see above marked "a"). You may find that use of the term "happiness" unhelpful, and that is fine. It isn't "fine" if you are trying to tell me I'm "wrong" for using it this way.

2) Correct, which is why I think it is clearer if the valuation depends on something intrinsic to the nature of humanity/"being" human. In other words, the object evaluated is the human being, and the moral life depends on how completed the human-life-lived has become. The more moral the human life lived, the more complete/full/fulfilled the life is in a specifically "human way". Human completion/fulfillment are synonymous with happiness on my account.

3) Fulfillment, on my account, is identifiable WITH the more proximate purpose/intention/end of any moral action, and therefore, the universal desire of humanity, i.e. to live in a fully human way. Different people have different understandings of what a-fully-human-way means, and everyone struggles with reconciling and recognizing this ideal with the more immediate daily desires and actions. But whatever it means for them and however intense the struggle to achieve it through their free action, that desire is the ultimate desire directing their life. The closer their understanding corresponds to the real object of human nature, the closer their actions correspond to the real actions which fulfill human nature, and the more aware they are of these correspondences and the more able they are the bring them about through their action, all determine the quality of the moral life, and therefore the freedom and fulfillment they find in living it. At least that is my assessment.

4) That's fine. But let me be clear: I do not think we desire "the-feelings-which-accompany-fulfillment". I think we desire the fulfillment itself, which is to say that we desire to BE whole.

5) Could you explain the difference between fulfillment and happiness, as you understand the terms? Thanks!