Recent orders
Philosophers
Views of Happiness
Student’s name
Institutional affiliation
Introduction
Philosophers attribute happiness to two subject matters; a state of mind and a life that is going on well according to the person leading it. Aristotle describes happiness as the purpose and meaning of life, the whole purpose, and the end of human existence. Happiness is dependent on us. People have different views of happiness. Some people attribute happiness to spirituality, virtuosity, and reverence while others see it as the joy and inner peace that comes from within, and others associate happiness with personal environments including rewarding hobbies and careers. All in all, psychologists have suggested that happiness comprises three elements namely the good life, the pleasant life, and the meaningful life. The purpose of this essay is to probe various views of happiness particularly Hedonism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, and Buddhism. The text further discusses the mot life-denying and life-affirming level of happiness and provides reasoning for each case.
Hedonism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, and Buddhism Explained
Hedonism is a Greek word meaning pleasure. It is a theory that explains what is good for people, how they are expected to behave, and the motivations behind these behaviors. Hedonism maintains that the predominance of pleasure over pain is the recipe for happiness. In essence, it holds that fulfilling a certain desire leads to a person’s happiness regardless of the pleasure or displeasure they get from it. Hedonistic theories point to pain and pleasure as they only significant elements and this makes the theory philosophically interesting and distinctive (Biswas-Diener, & Wiese, 2018). On the other hand, Epicureanism held that the most pleasant life requires abstaining from unnecessary desires and achieving tranquility from being satisfied with simple things, and selecting the pleasure philosophical conversations over the pursuit of pleasures that are physical like drinks, sex, and food. Epicureanism stressed more on thoughts of pleasure, lifestyle, and desire among others in achieving happiness. Furthermore, Stoicism was based on the notion that the key to a happy and good life is having an excellent state of mind, an aspect which Stoics associated with being rational and virtuous. In this viewpoint, an ideal life exists harmoniously with nature and exhibits a calm attitude towards external events. Finally, to pursue happiness Buddhism uses practice and knowledge to attain mental equanimity. Hence by attaining a mental state where one can detach themselves from the needs, passions, and wants of life, one frees themselves and attains a transcendent state of well-being. Buddhists believe that peace of mind, also referred to as equanimity is attained by disassociating yourself with the craving cycle which produces mental suffering (dukkha).
Hedonism as a Life-denying View of Happiness
Among the four theories of happiness, hedonism is the most life-denying approach to defining happiness for various reasons. Hedonism stresses that a happy life is one that seeks to minimize pain and maximizes feelings relating to pleasure. However, this notion has been criticized on moral grounds because it is non-beneficial to long-term happiness. There have been various mechanisms of this paradox that have been explained and examples of pleasure seekers that ended in despair particularly in behaviors of use of stimulants and frequent sex. Sometimes pleasure can too much and there is no way of determining how much is too much pleasure. This viewpoint of happiness can be termed as life-denying because the proponents are seen to justify drug abuse as an act that gives its users pleasure. The pleasure is however short-lived. Further, drug abuse only serves to make a person a spendthrift as opposed to making him save for the future. Hedonism fails to recognize that financial and health prudence gives a person long-term happiness but at the expense of discomfort which is experienced short term (Joshanloo, & Jarden 2016). In this case, the theory of hedonists applies to the marginal utility law which warrants drug users to continue using if they want to get the same amount of pleasure. Notably, this consumerism eventually leads to overexploitation of natural resources which negates environmental and sustainable resources. In essence, the hedonist standpoint of happiness warrants seeking pleasure constantly, and it is not guaranteed that it will produce the most pleasure both in the short-run and long-run as pursuing pleasure constantly interferes with the process of experiencing it.
Stoicism as a Life-affirming View of Happiness
Among the four mentioned theories of happiness, stoicism is the most life-affirming. The viewpoint is all about how humans can live in harmony with nature. Unlike other animals, human beings possess reason which helps them alter how they view themselves and their true good. Stoicism is life-affirming because it stresses on a love for all. Proponents of the theory viewed this theory as a philosophy of love and showed concern not only for themselves but also for friends, nature, and nature itself. This theory is interested in improving welfare for humanity. Another reason why the Stoics viewpoint is life-affirming is that it maintains that human beings should do their best to control what they can and let go of what they cannot control (Robertson, 2018). Stoics made it clear that the things which we can control are our attitudes and thoughts; everything thing else outside of this category cannot be controlled. This viewpoint of happiness achieving an excellent state of mind comes from concentrating on things one can control instead of wasting emotional energy on things we cannot control. Additionally, Stoicism holds that human beings act in accordance with their goals and interests including wealth and health. We do our best to navigate through life’s challenges and relate to the interests of other people.
Conclusion
Happiness is attributed to a state of mind and a life that is going on well according to the person leading it. Happiness is dependent on us and people have different views of happiness. Hedonism places emphasis on pleasure over pain. Epicureanism urges us to let go of unnecessary pleasures and to be satisfied with simple things, Further Stoicism holds that being in an excellent state of mind is the key to happiness while Buddhism uses knowledge and practices in equanimity to pursue happiness. Among the four theories of happiness, hedonism is the most life-denying approach to defining happiness while Stoicism is the most life-affirming approach to happiness.
References
Biswas-Diener, R., & Wiese, C. W. (2018). Optimal levels of happiness. Handbook of well-being. Salt Lake City, UT: DEF Publishers.
Joshanloo, M., & Jarden, A. (2016). Individualism as the moderator of the relationship between hedonism and happiness: A study in 19 nations. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 149-152.
Robertson, D. (2018). Stoicism and the Art of Happiness: Practical wisdom for everyday life: embrace perseverance, strength, and happiness with stoic philosophy. Hachette UK.
PhilliS Wheatley poem analysis
Student’s name
Course
Course Instructor
Date of Submission
Phillis Wheatley poem analysis
Wheatley was an African-American born in west Africa. She was transported to North America after she was sold into slavery to the Wheatley family in Boston. She was famous in England and American colonies after the publication in London of her poems on various subjects, religious and moral. Shortly after she publicized the book, her master died. She met and married John Peters who was a free black grocer. They lived in a poor condition with their there’s children and they all died due to poverty.
Parents are a blessing to each child. Mothers offer life to a child and raise him or her to the desired morals. Parenting is important to the growth of children. The Wheatley family acknowledged Phillis as their daughter and she was kept away from other servants and taught religion having been a pagan. She built her faith from the teachings. His husband abandoned her and their three children and thus she had to raise their children on her own. It was hard for her considering the poor conditions they were living in. Mothers instill self-esteem in children. They provide care to their children by feeding them and also clothing them.
Fathers are also important to the child’s development. They are viewed as a security to the family and thus children feel secured when around them. They are an example to the child’s future life, especially in his or her relationships. They are providers to the family. Parents are important in the development of a child since they provide a positive social behavior, cognitive, emotional and social development. The parents teaches values to their children, give directions, imporses rules and disciplines their children. The father and mother should work in hand in raising their children both physically, socially and psychologically. For example, Susanna was their to provide an environment for Phillis to grow and instilled moral value to her.
Honoree Jeffers filled in the gap left by Odell, a white woman who sketched the biological life of Phillis Wheatley. She argued that, the enslavement of Phillis helped her in her life. She portrays Susana, the foster mother to Phillis, as a christian who saved Phillis life. She described John Peters as a black man whose intention was to seduce Phillis and later abandon her leaving their family with nothing. However, Jeffers viewed the love between Phillis and Peters differently.
Honoree Jeffers reimage the life of Wheatley before she was enslaved and her relation with the Wheatley family. she figured the enslavement of Wheatley was a blessing to her. Even though she was separated from her birth mother, Susanna who was her enslaved mother thought of her as her daughter. She taught her Christianity. She impacted her morals on how to raise her children and her family. Despite been left by her husband, she stayed strong and raised her children well. Wheatley was treated differently from other servants and that indicated the love her foster parents had towards her. Phillis had a hard time adapting to the new culture and social class since she was raised in two different families.
Jeffers recovers the love letters of peter and Wheatley. Jeffrers was writing second volume poems of Wheatley’s life which was never published. For instance, the letter that peter tried to get the volume printed, shows that they had been in love despite the abandonment. This was after the death of peters where Jeffers tried to figure how their love was. “I think it is logical to assume that many, many black folks fell in love with many, many other black folks.” This was a statement in Jeffers’s writers. maybe the living status of the Wheatley family made pater abandon his family since he had accumulated many debts. America Antiquarin society inducted Jeffers into their organization because the work on Phillis Wheatley. Due to the recognition of Wheatley’s work, Jeffers was elected at AAS and this election enabled her writing of the Age of Phillis which was among the best poerty. Jeffers continued to portray the work of Wheatley which even made her famous.
In conclusion, Wheatley’s poem reflects our today’s society. We should recognize others and appreciate them. Family either by blood or parenting, it’s important in everyone’s life. Parents should not discriminate their children. They should treat them equally since it boosts their self-esteem.
References
Jeffers, Honorée Fanonne. “The Subjective Briar Patch: Contemporary American Poetry.” The Virginia Quarterly Review 88.2 (2012): 97-106.
Rowell, Charles H., and Honoree Fanonne Jeffers. “” Speaking from a Creolized Environment”: An Interview with Honoree Fanonne Jeffers.” Callaloo 27.4 (2004): 976-988.
Philanthropy as a Socially Responsible Business Activity
Question 1: Philanthropy as a Socially Responsible Business Activity
Corporate philanthropy is a core part of every organization, yet it is not required. Philanthropic duty, according to Carroll, Brown, and Buchholtz (2018), encompasses corporate efforts that aim to improve the globe and the communities in which they operate. Many large firms, such as Alibaba, partake in philanthropy to reduce their taxable income. However, decreasing the company’s overall tax due for the year is not the sole benefit of charitable donations (Porter & Kramer, 2002). Aside from being a component of corporate social responsibility, Alibaba has shown that philanthropy fulfills the most basic human wants. These are desires that cannot be satisfied by money, fame, or success. Alibaba is supporting China in attaining shared prosperity, or the deliberate transfer of wealth from the super-rich to the rest of the populace. Alibaba is a major player in China’s e-commerce market. Participating in philanthropic events and projects is an excellent way for large corporations like Alibaba to add considerable value to their workers’ jobs.
Philanthropy and social responsibility are both widespread corporate activities, and the two concepts often overlap in practice. Because the terms are often used interchangeably, it may be difficult to distinguish between CSR and philanthropy (Marquis, Glynn, & Davis, 2007). Philanthropy is a regular component of bigger corporate social responsibility programs. Both of these suggestions are excellent for putting a company’s resources to good use in the community that it serves. Furthermore, the funds may be donated to a nonprofit organization. When the history of each activity is examined, as well as organizations that engage in both philanthropy and corporate social responsibility at the same time, it is obvious that there are substantial disparities between the two forms of giving (Stendardi Jr, 1992). Although monetary gifts are the most popular kind of philanthropy, entities such as Alibaba may also give their time and other resources in addition to money. Philanthropy is, thus, an act of working toward the objective of making the world a better place by providing direct giving, such as food for the homeless or relief to those affected by a natural catastrophe.
In the short run, philanthropy does not offer lasting solutions but, instead, seeks answers to social issues. At the organizational level, Alibaba’s generosity, for example, takes many forms, each of which serves a distinct purpose. The firm routinely contributes financial assistance to groups trying to promote good social change. Sometimes it claims credit for philanthropic acts while also connecting its brand with the initiative. In certain cases, Alibaba augments its philanthropic contributions by conducting these activities in-house or creating strong collaborations with other organizations that are in need of support (Svensson, 2021). Certain corporations, such as Alibaba, have whole departments whose only function is to administer the company’s philanthropic initiatives. Even though the meaning of philanthropy is diverse (Zhong, Zhao, & Shahab, 2022), the concept is often misunderstood as a useless business venture (Yang et al., 2019). Philanthropy, however, must be understood as an extension of a firm’s corporate social responsibility and a way to position itself in the business world.
The degree to which a firm is dedicated to behaving in a socially responsible way influences its business practices and operations. It is more than simply a benevolent gesture since it engages the company with the problems that affect the community (Eweje & Palakshappa, 2011). This is not confined to philanthropic contributions. Being a Tech giant in China, Alibaba Group, for example, must implement certain communal benefits to its immediate environment in order to reduce the quantity of pollution produced by its operations. It would be irresponsible to abandon contaminated waste once some aspect of production has been completed. As a consequence, both the overall health of the community and the health of individuals of the community would suffer. Corporate social responsibility is not always maintained or enforced, but it should be an inherent component of any large firm, since certain commercial practices may have unintended consequences. Regardless of these realities, CSR remains an essential idea (Selsky & Parker, 2005). Therefore, philanthropy does not equate CSR because the latter refers to an organization’s attempts to avoid or reduce the risk of negative impacts on the local community, as well as its search for solutions to issues caused by the company’s influence on society, the environment, and employee well-being.
Although they may seem to be synonymous, corporate social responsibility refers to a company’s overall stance on society, whereas corporate philanthropy is a subset of CSR that focuses more strictly on giving back to the community. Businesses that are driven by a sense of humanitarian duty will often contribute a portion of their profits through philanthropy. Furthermore, they shall conduct themselves in an ethical and environmentally responsible way to the best of their abilities. Many for-profit businesses make donations to other entities whose aims are similar to their own. On the other hand, some businesses make a point of contributing money to worthy organizations that have nothing to do with their industry. Some firms go so far as to form their own philanthropic trusts or organizations in order to give back to their communities. Actions for Common Prosperity is a brand-new humanitarian project announced by Alibaba to the rest of the world (Yu & Kuo, 2021). It prioritizes five areas: developing technology, economic growth, excellent job prospects, supporting the vulnerable, and the shared prosperity development fund. Agriculture modernization, the growth of small, medium, and micro businesses, and the expansion of SMEs into global markets would all benefit from the enhanced funds provided by this project. Furthermore, it will improve people’s prospects of finding respectable job (Kim & Ji, 2021). Across this way, the company goes above and beyond its corporate social responsibility duties to build a culture of caring for its surroundings and the people it serves in a wide range of work areas and industries.
Given what has been said so far, it is clear that philanthropic responsibility is a subset of, or maybe an altogether different subculture within, corporate social responsibility. Businesses like Alibaba may give back to the community in a number of ways, including sponsoring educational programs, aiding with health initiatives, providing money to deserving groups, and working with projects to enhance the town’s image. The goals of corporate social responsibility and philanthropy giving, on the other hand, are inexorably interwoven. Engaging in philanthropic giving and other types of corporate social responsibility is one approach for a firm to strive toward improving its reputation in the eyes of the general public. However, these efforts often go beyond that since corporate social responsibility and philanthropy may also help a company become more competitive. CSR and giving back to the society may be seen as tactics to add value to the company by developing and maintaining a good corporate reputation and/or enhancing brand equity, according to Alibaba (Zhou, Chen, & Li, 2018). This is one way that value may be added. Customers who shop at a firm that practices corporate social responsibility and philanthropy assume that their purchases help the company to support philanthropic endeavors. When Alibaba invests in measures to improve operational efficiency, it reduces not just its overall operating costs, but also the amount of environmental harm done (Wang et al., 2022). Employees who are aware that their business has corporate social responsibility and, more specifically, philanthropic obligation are more likely to stay with the company for a longer amount of time and to put in substantial effort to guarantee the company’s success.
In summary, corporate philanthropy and corporate social responsibility (CSR) are two sides of the same coin. Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference between corporate social responsibility and philanthropy since the phrases are sometimes used interchangeably. Philanthropy is a socially responsible business activity and a way to augment a brand’s position in the world. CSR actions, such as philanthropy, may be a key marketing tool that may help a company position itself favorably in the eyes of consumers, investors, and regulators. Initiatives targeted at increasing a company’s social responsibility may also increase employee engagement and satisfaction, two important indicators that influence employee retention. These kinds of activities might also interest potential employees who have strong personal beliefs that are comparable to those held by the organization. Alibaba has demonstrated that CSR and philanthropy must remain to be two independent functions in a brand’s effort to add value, attract more customers, and reposition itself above other firms in an industry. Specifically, through its Action for Common Prosperity, Alibaba prioritizes five areas: developing technology, economic growth, excellent job prospects, supporting the vulnerable, and the shared prosperity development fund. The firms demonstrates that agricultural modernization in China and the rest of Asia, the growth of small, medium, and micro businesses, and the expansion of SMEs into global markets would all benefit from the enhanced funds provided by the philanthropic responsibility. By partnering with nonprofits, the government, individuals, and communities, Alibaba has gone over and beyond the definition of CSR to become a truly philanthropic enterprise. In the end, participating in philanthropic events and projects is an excellent way for large corporations like Alibaba to add considerable value to their workers’ jobs.
References
Carroll, A. B., Brown, J. A., and Buchholtz, A. K (2018). Business and Society: Ethics, Sustainability and Stakeholder management. (10th ed.). Cengage Learning: Boston. http://196.190.117.157:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/43243/134.pdf?sequence=2
Eweje, G., & Palakshappa, N. (2011). Stakeholder collaboration in New Zealand: Adding value and legitimacy. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, (43), 79-101. https://doi.org/10.9774/gleaf.4700.2011.au.00006
Kim, S., & Ji, Y. (2021). Positive ripple effects of corporate leaders’ CSR donations amid COVID-19 on corporate and country reputations: Multi-level reputational benefits of CSR focusing on Bill Gates and Jack Ma. Public Relations Review, 47(4), 102073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102073
Marquis, C., Glynn, M. A., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Community isomorphism and corporate social action. Academy of management review, 32(3), 925-945. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.25275683
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard business review, 80(12), 56-68. 133. PMID: 12510538.
Selsky, J. W., & Parker, B. (2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of management, 31(6), 849-873. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279601
Stendardi Jr, E. J. (1992). Corporate philanthropy: The redefinition of enlightened self-interest. The Social Science Journal, 29(1), 21-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/0362-3319(92)90014-9
Svensson, M. (2021). “Crazy Jack” and the “Gay CEO”: visions, entrepreneurship, and the Chinese state in the new digital economy. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, 50(1), 63-85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1868102621991558
Wang, H., Zhang, Y., Tian, M., Wang, Z., & Ding, Y. (2022). Promoting and inhibiting: Corporate charitable donations and innovation investment under different motivation orientations——Evidence from Chinese listed companies. Plos one, 17(4), e0266199. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266199
Yang, Y., Yao, S., He, H., & Ou, J. (2019). On corporate philanthropy of private firms and trade credit financing in China. China Economic Review, 57, 101316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2019.101316
Yu, H. C., & Kuo, L. (2021). Corporate philanthropy strategy and sustainable development goals. Sustainability, 13(10), 5655. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105655
Zhong, M., Zhao, W., & Shahab, Y. (2022). The philanthropic response of substantive and symbolic corporate social responsibility strategies to COVID‐19 crisis: Evidence from China. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(2), 339-355. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2204
Zhou, Q., Chen, X., & Li, S. (2018). Innovative financial approach for agricultural sustainability: A case study of Alibaba. Sustainability, 10(3), 891. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030891