However McMahon cautions us by saying that the flip side of happiness is the constant companion of unhappiness: “For what is the meaning of our relentless search for happiness if not an avowal of our present discontent? The frantic, frenzied pursuit is itself a sign of disquiet.” (McMahon, 2010, p. 486) McMahon never does answer the question of his essay title, or give a better alternative to pursuing happiness as the goal of life, except perhaps when he quotes the sociologist Weber “we want to cultivate and support what appears to us valuable in man”. (McMahon, 2010, p. 484) I see McMahon’s essay as valuable in understanding how the pursuit of happiness was seen in these three time periods, rather than a discussion about …show more content…
I found the essay somewhat challenging because de Cea used a lot of philosophical terminology I wasn’t familiar with. Many of the ideas were familiar to me, since I had already read bits and pieces from the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama’s ethics is similar to virtues ethics which Abraham calls gradualist, since it allows people to be at different spiritual levels, and therefore have different responses to the same circumstances. For example, a person at a lower spiritual level can be “wisely selfish”, where you focus on both your own needs and the needs of others, while more spiritually developed people are motivated by “wise compassion”. He says "I am not suggesting that each individual must attain these advanced states of spiritual development in order to lead an ethically wholesome life". (de Cea, 2013, p. 514) “According to your own resources, and recognizing the limitations of your circumstances, you will do what you can. Apart from this, I am not calling for any commitment as such.” (de Cea, 2013, p.