06. A submitted essay on Happiness and Suffering

 I submitted this essay for a module in the fall of 2024.

“Suffering and pain are the natural state for human beings. Happiness is not, and if happiness is presented as the natural state, it is rather fake, as humanity is bound to be in pain and suffering in a cruel existence” Do you agree with this statement? 

To say suffering and pain are the natural states of human beings is to claim that we are inherently supposed to suffer before we are conditioned by our surroundings and life experiences. Whether suffering or happiness is thought as our natural state is significant to humans as our actions are shaped by our beliefs. In this essay, I will explore the various philosophical and religious views on happiness and suffering and how they relate to our natural state. I would show why I disagree with the premise and propose that the delicate balance between happiness and suffering should be thought of as our natural state.

I agree that humans live in a cruel existence, we are bound to experience pain and suffering throughout life. Much pain is experienced by a mother giving birth to a child. When that child is born, he might have a disability or a chronic illness. Some unfortunate children are born in war-torn countries; thus, they experience unimaginable terror and pain at an early age. Through life, we are bound to experience rejections and other painful events. As we get older, we might develop arthritis, dementia or other conditions which our frail bodies may not be able to overcome. Finally, all humans experience the ultimate existential pain, death. Some of us will be in extreme pain when we approach our death. Even after our death, emotional pain is experienced by those who mourn after us.

This seems to suggest that suffering and pain are the natural states of humans. In fact, philosophers like Schopenhauer suggest that pain is the default state of humans. He proposed that when we experience pleasure, the event is just a temporary escape from our default state of suffering. When we desire happiness, we will fall into an endless cycle of happiness seeking and it will result in suffering due to unfulfilled desires.

This concept is also shown in religions. In Christianity, due to the concept of original sin, humans are condemned to live an earthly life filled with pain and suffering. Only through death, could humans experience perfect happiness in heaven. In Buddhism, an important doctrine is the concept of dukkha. It says that humans will go through a range of experiences from the subtle feeling of existential unease to the intense feeling of physical and emotional pain and suffering.

These philosophies suggest that pain and suffering are the natural states of humans.

However, on the contrary, existentialists like Satre suggest that there is no pre-ordained meaning to life. Satre’s idea that existence precedes essence can be used to argue that there is no natural state for humans. He teaches that we have to make our own choices in order to be happy.

Although I am inclined to the existentialist’s ideas, I think that it does not matter if there really is a natural state for human beings. This is because when we frame something as our natural state, it can affect our actions in life. I think that it will serve humanity better when the balance between happiness and suffering is thought of as our natural state.

When happiness is thought of as our natural state, people will be inclined to relentlessly pursue happiness in order to reach our natural state. In the story of Croesus and Solon, we learn that the relentless pursuit of happiness threatens to subvert itself. In psychological studies of the hedonic treadmill, we find that people who intently search for happiness turn out to be less satisfied with their lives compared to those who do happiness-inducing activities without the intention of pursuing happiness. Hence, it will not be beneficial for humans to think of happiness as the natural state of humans.

On the other hand, when suffering is thought to be the natural state for humans, it seems to be nihilistic and depressing. We would just accept our state of suffering and not be motivated to pursue happiness. However, this seems to be contrary to the literature on happiness. Studies show that people in the 21^st century are more likely to want happiness than their historic counterparts. In my opinion, framing suffering and pain as our natural state will do more harm than good.

Happiness and suffering are intertwined in the human condition. Many philosophers have agreed with this concept. For example, Nietzsche presented a thought experiment on recurring existence. He asked how we would react when a demon revealed to us that the life we are living will be repeated infinitely after our death. Everything would be the same, including all experiences of pain and suffering. This thought experiment wants us to think about how we would have lived life to gladly accept the demon’s revelation of eternal recurrence. Is it when we experience extreme happiness with no pain in life? It seems impossible. Nietzsche proposed that in order to have the greatest possible happiness, we must also experience the greatest possible suffering. Hence, for us to achieve life satisfaction, we must first accept both happiness and suffering as part of our lives. This concept also echoes Aristotle’s concept of the Golden Mean. Aristotle thought that for humans to have life satisfaction, they should strive to be the middle ground of virtue. You should be moderately generous, not too wasteful or too stingy. Hence, we should not seek too much happiness and become hedonistic or accept too much suffering and become pessimistic.

When we frame our natural states as a balance between happiness and suffering, we can achieve attunement. A nuanced and balanced approach ensures that we will not suffer on the hedonic treadmill or be extremely nihilistic. Humans will have greater life satisfaction when they are attuned to life.