On Bullying

[Johnathan Clayborn]

Sometimes I get emails from Change.org to my inbox. Some of them I sign, others I laugh at. Today I've received one on an issue that honestly has me torn: bullying. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating bullying, not at all. I'm not convinced that our approach is handling bullying is the right way to go.

This particular article started with a tale of woe about a 14 year school girl who was bullied at school and online and then, tragically, took her own life. The girl's mother pushed to have legislation enacted that would keep bullying out of schools. The petition was sent out to stop SB-500, which basically states that the schools would not be allowed to initiate disciplinary action against students who cyber-bullied other students on the grounds that the school doesn't have the authority to control children on the nights and weekends and that the school is not the police department.

Obviously, bullying sucks. Anyone who's ever been bullied knows that. So, on the one hand, I totally relate and have empathy for these kids. But I'm torn because I don't think that pretending that bullying doesn't exist is the right approach. Okay, so you've effectively put up a wall of make-believe at school and made the students stop picking on each other, great. What's going to happen when those students go to work and find themselves working with coworkers, or even for a boss who is a bully? What if the HR person is a bully? (Yes, that happens, while I never was the target of that, I have personally seen it). It seems to me that instead of trying with futility to change the whole of human behavior, we should be teaching children how to respond to bullying. I suppose it's possible (but I think highly unlikely) that they might teach kids not to bully other kids and that once they are out of school those kids will suddenly all just become nice people, but what happens when those people interact with people from other countries where bullying isn't outlawed? They will literally have no skills to handle such a situation. I don't see how that is helping. We don't tell our kids "Hey, bicycles are dangerous and you might fall down and get hurt so we're going to put a ban on bicycles until you're 25 and how no idea how to ride them anyway." No, we teach our kids, this is how you ride a bike. This is how you get up and dust yourself off when you fall down. This is how you laugh it off and take it in stride.

Rather than protecting our kids from this menace I really feel like a better use of our time and money would be to teach kids to have confidence in who they are and embrace their quirks. I vociferously oppose the "zero tolerance" policy in schools. I have, and will always tell my kids that they have the right to defend themselves. If someone starts a fight with them, they are allowed to fight back. Even if the school suspends them, they will not face repercussions at home as long as they didn't start it.

I've found that most of the people who bully do so because they are insecure themselves, and most of the people who tend to get bullied are some of the most awesome people. Wil Wheaton has talked several times about how he was bullied as a kid, and he has really great advice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04WJEEb33CY I was called a nerd a lot in school. I know, that's a big surprise to everyone who knows me even a little (sarcasm). I am huge nerd. I make no apologies about that. It's who I am and I fully embrace that fully. I'm a dork, and I'm silly and I find wonderment in life from the inner workings of our universe down to the smallest atoms and how photosynthesis works. It's just absolutely amazing to me. I wouldn't trade any of what I know for people to stop calling me a nerd. The more I know, the more beautiful and amazing the world becomes. In some ways I do pity those who rebuke science because they will never see how beautifully intricate everything is. We shouldn't be teaching kids to run away and hide from ridicule. We should be giving them the confidence to embrace who they are enjoy what they love.

Choosing your lessons

[Johnathan Clayborn]

Yesterday the intranet page at my work had an interesting poll. The question was:

If you can only be w/ one type of person for the rest of your life...Would it be..
1) Someone you settle for and are miserable with, but who is financially stable.
2) someone that you want to be with, but you both struggle financially barely making it paycheck to paycheck.

Not surprisingly, 3/4ths of the people who responded selected option 2, myself included. There were a lot of people who rationalized their choice with comments like "money doesn't buy happiness". One commenter suggested that "if you select option 2...You will argue w/ your significant other mainly over money. Its inevitable no matter how much you love your mate.". Others were quick to point out that If you agree on how/what to use your limited resources on then you will not argue about it. The arguments come because you have different goals/priorities, not because of lack of money. In some cases this is easier said than done, but the logic is highly accurate.

I responded to the thread with the same example I gave when I was in my undergrad degree and I discussed in my post back in December, 2011. The basic premise of argument is that without sufficient income you are sometimes presented with a Kobyashi Maru scenario where there is no right answer. No matter what choice you make you will emotionally distraught and psychologically distressed. These types of choices are made every day by the "working poor" of America, people who make more than minimum wage, but less than enough to have a comfortable living. Is money the end-all, be-all thing to have? Certainly not. Money is not everything. However, when you are struggling to make ends meet, not having enough money to pay for things will certainly lead to unhappiness. Anyone who's ever been in that situation can attest, it's no picnic.

Another commenter responded to my post by saying that he agreed with me and that it's our resilience that gets us through those hard times. He suggested that people who picked option 1 because they thought that it might bring financial peace of mind are forgetting what the other commenter posted about differing goals and priorities; just because you have money doesn't mean that you won't fight and argue about it. In some cases you may fight and argue more because there's more money to fight over.

I vociferously concur with that commenter's sentiment. What most people fail to realize is that life is about struggle. You will always struggle in your life. You will always have a problem, a dilemma, a challenge...something that needs to be overcome. Honestly, that's part of what makes life interesting.  The question is never about whether or not you want strife in your life, it's going to be there regardless. The question is really about what the nature of that strife should be. There you have some choice in the matter, that's why I picked option 2. It's better to struggle with someone that you actually like. Our whole lives are nothing more than a series of sequential challenges, it's how we handle those challenges and what lessons we take away from them that define us. I'm not at all ashamed to admit that at one point in my life, in my early 20's, I was basically homeless living in an RV in a KMart parking lot where I worked. I decided that I didn't like that condition, and I changed it. It was a series of stupid choices, the kind that young people often make, that lead me to that spot in the first place. Since I made choices that lead me to be there, I could make choices that would take me away from there. Now, 12 years later, you would not have guessed that I was basically homeless, and I'm approximately 18 months away from completing my PhD. I firmly believe that every situation and experience in our life can teach us valuable lessons. Since it's our struggles and strife that defines us, that teach us, the real question we should be asking is "what lessons would I like to learn today?"


Emotional Stability and Motivation

[Johnathan Clayborn]

Recently something has happened that has rocked my emotional foundation to its very core. I have always been aware of how much emotional needs tie into other aspects of life, but this time I am acutely so. What I've also discovered is that the pyramid shape of the hierarchy, if it is truly a pyramid, can experience earthquakes (..or need-quakes?) .



The traditional hierarchy is presented in 5 levels, the base of the pyramid, and the most important level, is physiological needs; food, water, warmth, rest, etc. Then after you have is Safety and Security, then Belongingness and Love needs, then Esteem Needs, and finally self-actualization at the top.

In theory, if something in the middle of the pyramid breaks, it should affect the levels above it. However, this isn't necessarily true. For example, hypothetically speaking, suppose the person that you are madly in love with suddenly decides that they don't want to be in a relationship with you. This is revealed in the middle layer; love and belonging. Certainly, you don't feel loved or like you belong. Certainly being rejected in such a fashion can damage your ego and self-esteem, which in turn topples the self-actualization component. Why try making something beautiful like art or working on self-improvement, when you don't feel worthy of being improved to begin with?

What surprised me was that this upset to the middle layer also reverberates back down to the lower levels as well. When there's a major disruption to something like that people usually do not eat or sleep, or if they do it is in small amounts. This belies the nature of the first layer and flies in its face as a contradiction. It can also affect the safety and security layer as well. Some people are actually motivated to hurt themselves physically, but even those who are not have a general feeling of apathy and won't try as hard to keep themselves safe as before. They either don't care about their bodies or their health as they should, or they don't avoid risky behavior like they should and sometimes actually seek it out. All these actions contradict the pyramid shaped hierarchy structure.

A disruption to emotional stability, especially a drastic and unexpected one can have serious consequences to motivation and thoughts of self-worth. It definitely affects a person's self-esteem profoundly. The effects of these impacts to the hierachy are often long-lasting and can be quite serious. In some cases these effects can be life-long.

Trusting Your Instincts

[Johnathan Clayborn]
Recently I've found myself in a situation that I would have never dreamed of finding myself in. It's a quandary with no real right answers one way or the other. It's not a situation that I would have asked for, and yet, despite that, it's one that I'm very glad that I'm in. And yes, I'm being deliberately vague, and no, I won't elaborate.

The point of this is that sometimes, you just have a feeling and know what you need to do. You may not want to do it, you might dread it or put it off, but you know what needs to happen. How do you know? Because you feel it in your gut. This undeniable inner voice from somewhere deep within your core speaks to you, telling you how it is.

It's kind of one of those situations that, had I explained the details you would most likely consider me completely crazy. And yet, I know more surely than I have ever known anything that this is the right path to take, even though it's not the easy path. How do I know? Because my inner voice tells me so. My psyche, or my subconscious, or my soul, or whatever you want to call it, it speaks, nay it shouts to be heard. To deny what my gut tells me is right causes me stress, anxiety and emotional and physical discomfort.

But what if you don't have such a strong feeling? What if you are faced with a choice and you aren't sure how to proceed? Are there other ways to tell? There are lots of tricks to help you. One piece of advice from LifeHacker is to pretend like you are giving advice to a friend who is going through the same situation. This is easier said than done in most cases. I'm very good at giving advice. Many of my friends seek me out because of my wisdom and insight. However, even knowing what I would tell them in that situation, sometimes it's difficult to take your own advice. So what other options are there?

Lifehacker also suggests limiting the amount of information that you take in. Sometimes taking in too much information can cloud the decision making process because you get hung up on the trivial details. Of course, in some cases this is not always possible, so what else is there?

Making a list of pros and cons can help some people who are very analytical or overly-organized see "the big picture". I've certainly done this a few times myself, but it doesn't work in every situation.

Some research suggests that there are many different factors that might affect your decision making including (but not limited to); time of day, how angry you are, your surroundings, the ambient music, etc. But if you are aware that these might be influencing your decision they are easy enough to counteract.

One resource suggests something called the "10-10-10 rule" for decision making. Ask how you will feel in 10 minutes, 10 months, and 10 years about your choice. If you would still be happy with it, it's a good idea. The fallacy of this logic is that you don't know how you will feel in 10 months or 10 years; all you have to go on is how you feel right now.

Surprisingly there is a lot of research that suggests that quick, snap decisions, can be the best method. There was an article in Psychology Today that talked about this next premise, although I can't seem to find it, so I'll post the link to what is essentially the same concept on Lifehacker below. Basically, the PT article said to think about the question, and then close your eyes, push everything out of your head and then after you were calm, count to three and say your answer. Whatever you decide under the pressure like that is generally better and will make you happier. The LifeHacker method was a bit more involved and included a piece of paper and a long distraction, but it included the same basic gut response. One poster who responded to the LH article had a brilliant idea: to flip a coin; heads or tail and then take note of which side you hoped that it landed on. That would be the right decision.

The point of all of this? Some decisions can seem impossibly hard on the surface, especially if you think about and analyze them with your cognitive brain. But sometimes it's just best to turn that off and trust your gut instincts.

References:

http://lifehacker.com/four-tricks-to-help-you-make-any-difficult-decision-987762341

http://listverse.com/2013/02/12/10-weird-things-that-can-affect-decision-making/

https://popforms.com/smart-fast-decisions/

http://lifehacker.com/follow-your-gut-and-make-better-decisions-with-this-sim-1214011055

The Necessary Art of Self-Deception

[Johnathan Clayborn]
I know that as a blogger I'm not doing a very good job of posting regular articles. But, to be perfectly honest this pursuit is at least of quatinary importance to me falling in line after school, family, and work obligations are met (not necessarily in that order). So, it should come as no surprise that I haven't posted in a while. These last few months have kept me very busy, but on the up side I have officially completed my 1st year of my PhD progam.

I had many interesting conversations and topics come up during the last couple of months, but didn't have the time to write about them. I'm going to use this opportunity to write about one of the more recent conversations that came up in school during my Culture and Ethics class.

As human beings we are amazingly good at the art of self-deception. We also have this amusingly frustrating ability to define things in the absolute. This is particularly true when it comes to questions and topics of a moral or ethical nature.

One thing that I've noticed of late is that humans are generally very quick to point the blame and criticize or ridicule those whom they feel have violated their preconceived notions of morality. We have our own set of moral codes and beliefs that we staunchly and stoutly cling to, safely believing that our moral code is infallible and that we would adhere to these rules unquestionably.

In truth, life is simply not that simple. Now, mind you, I'm not advocating the creative implementation of excuses to defy your moral code. I'm not even suggesting that you should actively seek opportunities to do so. But, I am saying that when it comes to how we evaluate our actions and behavior perhaps there is a little too much confirmation bias at play.

Often I have been in conversations with people who say things like "I would never steal anything". Really? Never? Never ever? That's an interesting lie that you're telling yourself. Now, for 1 person out of 1,000 this might be true, with emphasis on might. But for the vast majority of us we're engaging in self-deception. Does this mean that most people are thieves and crooks? No. But, what I am suggesting is that there might exist an extenuating circumstance so grievious that the most logical choice of action would be to break your moral code.

Take, for example, a natural disaster or a public crisis. Suppose that your city is in panic. Power is out. Your refridgerator is no longer working. Instead of having 2 weeks of food on hand (which is the national average according to FEMA, by the way), your cold goods are now bad and you have 5 days worth of dry goods to eat. In a survival situation people should keep in mind the rule of 3's: people can generally not survive more than 3 minutes without air, 3 days without water, and 3 weeks without food. Now, bearing this in mind, if you were in this siutation where you had no electricity and little food, if you were to fast-forward 2 weeks to the point where you have haven't eaten in days and you're starving. Maybe you have small children to think of as well. If you came across a store that had food inside, would break in and steal it? Most people would when faced with that situation, even those people who devoutly profess that they would never steal anything. What if there was someone who was hoarding food? Would you physically attack them to try to take food for your own family? If they think they could take them in a fight or they were desperate enough, most people would. Of course, it's easy to deny it now when everything is kosher and say that you're above all of that, but if you ever find yourself in such a situation see what you think then.

So why is it that we do this? Why do we have this inherent need to lie to ourselves? The answer, simply, is because we have to. We have to beleive that we are good people and are incapable of egregious acts like what I described above. To admit to ourselves that we would, in fact, break many or of our own moral codes if the situation mandated that we must presents us with a logical fallacy that our cognitive brains are not capable of

reconciling. Granted, the tipping point for most people to cross their ethical and moral boundaries is quite varied. For some people it doesn't take much, but for others the situation has to be extraordinary. A lot of this self-deception is the fault of our own egos and super-egos, which are the psychological process that our brains use to develop our self image. We tend to be happier and healthier when we can picture ourselves as good people, incapable of any wrongdoing at any time.

Grief & Loss

[Johnathan Clayborn]

My heart at aches heavily at the news of the shooting at Sandy Point Elementary School earlier this morning. As of this writing the estimates are that 27 people are dead and 18 of them are school children, most of them in Kindergarten. This really hits home for me as my own son, William, is in first grade and is almost the same age as many of these victims.

Grief is complex, powerful emotion. Zoologists have shown that even animals feel grief. Grief can be slight or it can be completely and totally debilitating. It can just appear suddenly without warning, particularly in cases where the grief is the result of a disaster or catastrophe.

What’s rather interesting is how we handle grief. For one thing, if people perish as the result of a natural disaster; a flood, a hurricane, etc, then it seems like we have a somewhat easier time dealing with that. Sure, there is still grief, particularly for those who lost loved ones, but we sort of recognize on some level that the situation was completely out of our hands. However, when the grief is the result of an act of senselessness, like this shooting, we have a much harder time processing this. Part of that seems to be due to the fact that perpetrators of these heinous acts actually have a choice. They are choosing to commit these acts and they are choosing to take the lives of others. When we cannot process what thought patterns would lead a human being to make such a senseless, irrational decision, we falter in our ability to process and handle the grief.

Another strange quirk of grief; grief is amplified by its proximity to salvation. You might be wondering what I mean by that. Suppose that you have a plane full of people and the plane crashes in the middle of the ocean and everyone perishes. It’s sad, a horrible tragedy to be sure. However, if that exact same plan crashed within a few miles of the runway they were trying to reach, it seems like a far worse tragedy. What changed? The same number of people perished either way. The biggest difference is the fact the people almost made it; they were almost safe. Being that close to being safe and falling short seems to make any disaster worse.

This certainly isn't the blog post I was intending on making today, but I felt compelled to discuss grief and its complexity. You’ll have to forgive me if this isn't one of my longer posts, I’m going to go take some time to myself and try to make sense of this tragedy. 

Santa: To Tell or Not To Tell

[Johnathan Clayborn]
Today’s entry is by special request. One of my friends and readers wrote in requesting that I do an article about the ethical implications involved with lying to your children, even if it is about Santa Claus. I could tell where he stood on the issue by the tone of his message; he thinks that telling children that the big, red-man exists is bad and creates an ethical dilemma. After all, you are lying to children, so how do you get them to trust you after that? I have been telling my own kids about Santa, but I do see his point. It made me wonder if there were any studies conducted on the subject and what the “court of public opinion” believes. And, with any luck, we’ll be able to put that debate at the family get-togethers to rest.

I will start off by saying that after reading his message it induced a moment of nostalgia. I vividly remembered when I first learned the truth. It was second grade. Like my friend, my 2^nd grade teacher felt that it was ethically reprehensible to lie for any reason. Because of her beliefs she informed our entire second grade class that there was no such thing as Santa Claus. To say that she had a classroom full of very upset little children would be an understatement. Interestingly, I remember being angry with my teacher for breaking “the spell” of Santa, and I remember wondering why my parents would tell me about Santa if he wasn’t real. Was it some joke that I wasn’t part of? What was the point? Despite the unfortunate manner in which I learned the truth I just came to accept that it was just something that adults did.

It is with these thoughts and experiences as a backdrop that I began my research. I wanted to keep an open mind about this topic and gather the information as objectively as possible. Human history is full of make-believe beings; leprechauns, fairies, gnomes, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and all manner of monsters and demons. There are Jedi and Sith lords, time-travelling robots, and even aliens from outer space. The most obvious and most common form of creating these lies is for entertainment purposes. They are used in story telling sometimes as a metaphor, or a symbol, or as an archetypal character to represent a particular type of person. The difference here is that in literature and movies these other stories are understood to be make believe right from the start. So, the question really becomes; is lying to your children about Santa harmful to their emotional well-being? Is it unethical?

Interestingly enough, the question of Santa came up in the ethics class that I am currently taking. There were essentially two schools of thought on this topic. The first group, a very small margin, felt that it was ethically improper to tell their children lies about Santa Claus. Of course, I should also add that this person’s reasoning was that “Jesus would be mad that you’re assisting your children in worshipping a false idol”. They seemed to have the ethical quandary of lying about Santa confused with a moral dilemma of whether hyping up Santa at Christmas constitutes worship.

The second group felt that it was okay to lie to your children about Santa. However, this group was also divided into two camps as well. Half of this group felt that there was absolutely nothing wrong with it whatsoever. They wrote things like “it encourages young children’s imaginations” and that it “served as a vessel for passing along traditions and values”.  The other group, which I admittedly was part of, felt that it did constitute a breach of ethics in the strictest sense of the definition, but that the end justified the means. Sure, a lie is ethically improper, however in most cases ethics and morals are not resolute, concrete ideologies that are unyielding in principal. I’m willing to bet that I can pose several scenarios in which you would likely violate your own moral or ethical code in some way or another.

Having exhausted my search of materials in class relating to this topic, I turned my search to other resources. My first bid was to go to the all-knowing, all-powerful internet. While information gleaned off of the internet should always be taken with a grain of salt I do find it a good starting point for some of my other resources. In my search on the internet I Googled the phrase Santa Claus Ethics. The results of this search immediately convinced me that my friend is not alone in his view of Santa. 

One interesting site that I found is a blog called Pea Soup. The blog itself is a huge site with dozens of contributors and focuses exclusively on ethics, philosophy and academia. While this particular entry by Heath White was rather short, it sparked an internet debate when it first appeared 2 years ago. Dozens upon dozens of further articles popped up all over the internet in response to White’s post, and dozens more popped up in response to those responses. White opposed the proliferation of the Santa Claus myth. He argues that it’s immoral (which it may be to him, but the question is whether or not it’s ethical, and yes, there is a difference). White argues that the Santa myth has, at least, three strikes against it.

1.       It involves a lot of lying and deception practiced on credulous people.

2.       It tends to foster greed in children and contributes to the notion that happiness equates to the material wealth that you possess.

3.       By telling children that the gifts that Santa brings them are tied to their behavior it further undermines their personal growth. Especially since the gifts that a child receives are not the result of the child’s behavior, but rather are the result of the family’s socio-economic standing and parental temperament. This tends to breed moral complacency in well-off children and false feelings of moral inferiority in less well-off children.

One of the more prominent and immediate responses appeared on the blog Love of All Wisdom. The author here counter’s White’s points Vis-à-vis. The author here, Amod Lele, raises some interesting counter-points to White’s claims. He argues that White’s first point should be invalidated because it paints a bleak picture of humanity if children only know the truth and never pretend or make believe. He says “One can tell children stories they will understand, long before they understand the difference between myth and reality. Is this a lie? Perhaps, but one shudders before the implications of an account of truth so unflinching and demanding that it requires all children’s stories be clearly marked as false and fictional.”  He further goes on to describe such an existence as cold. As a parent, I’ll admit that there are certain things that I’ve told my child that weren’t entirely true. For example; there’s some kind of chemical processing plant near our house. On the premises of this plant are two tall silver spires of pipe of different heights. They look to be some kind of giant pressure valves or boilers, or something of that nature. In truth, I have no idea what these things are. I’m not even sure what chemical is processed there. So, when my son asked me what they are I told him that I didn’t know. And then he told me that they were rocket ships. To this day they’re still rocket ships. He’s 5 and he can get a lot of concepts, but explaining that it’s some kind of equipment that has to do with pressurized processing of a chemical is not likely something that he’s going to understand at his age. So, I let it go until he’s older and can understand such concepts.

Lele’s agrees with White’s second point. He’s also indifferent on White’s third point as well. The one thing that he does admit is that in order for the Santa-Behavior myth to carry any real weight behind it parents would actually have to follow through on their threats on not give gifts to children who genuinely are naughty. However, as he points out, most parents lack the capacity for this or are so blinded by their love for their children that they overlook their transgressions and misdeeds.

Some argue that the Santa-behavior myth teaches children to be good by providing rewards for desired behavior, a-la B. F. Skinner. However, as any good psychologist will tell you, providing one gift annually based an abstract average of overall behavior is not consistent or frequent enough to have any lasting effect on a child’s long-term development. Some psychologists argue that one reward per week might be too long of a delay, particularly in very young children. 

One thing that also seemed to come up in all of the discussions that I found was the concept or notion of tradition. Most people know that Santa Claus as we know him today has existed for quite a while. In my earlier post on some holiday myths I pointed out some of the different tales and traditions which make up the modern Santa. The question that is hotly debated here is “how do you separate out the traditions from the lies?”

Many people, myself included, are on the fence about it. It is technically a lie, yes, but it seems as though it’s a culturally accepted one and one that has good arguments from both sides of the issue. Many more people don’t even give the issue a second thought.

One interesting side-question as I press on. I did come across one blog where the author was writing about a response to a NY Times article. The commenter asked “if you’re a child and you figure out that there’s no such thing as Santa, is it unethical to continue to play along in the hopes of getting more presents?” An interesting question, to be sure. Certainly, that would support the argument that belief in Santa promotes greed. But, could they also not say something to their parents as a means of retaliating? ie: You lied to me that he existed in the first place, so I’m going to lie to you by saying that I still believe. Is that ethical for either party?

One blogger over at Philosophy, etc. argued that the proliferation of the Santa Claus myth isn’t really a lie because children are able to discern the difference. They cite a few cognitive psychologists who suggest that children know all along and they’re just playing the game with us. I vociferously disagree. Over time they may figure it out and elect to play along, however, if you are a small child and you are suddenly told that there is not a Santa after years of believing it can be quite a traumatic experience. And it’s not as though this is just a few harmless tales that are easy to disbelieve in, it’s a world-wide conspiracy. You have department stores telling your children that Santa is real, internet websites where you can video-chat with Santa, major newspapers writing stories about Santa’s exploits. I mean, if it’s in the news it has to be true, right? And let’s not forget the US Government helps perpetuate this myth. What I am talking about? The US Military’s NORAD tracks Santa website, of course. They even have a page called “Is Santa Real?” where they neither confirm nor deny his existence. However, they also provide a video and an interactive map that shows Santa’s progress across the globe on Christmas Eve. This isn’t just some small white lie that you tell your friends “no man, that shirt doesn’t make you look stupid”, this is a large, elaborate lie that goes on for weeks and months and years by almost everyone.

Another interesting blog that I read was called Philosophy Dad in which the author counters six points in favor of lying to your children about Santa. Here are the six points in favor of lying, according to Steven Law:

1.       It makes them Happy

2.       Educational Fibbing

3.       Gives them something to believe in

4.       Fun for adults

5.       Useful for controlling behavior

6.       Protects children from upsetting or damaging truths

Now, I could write out Philosophy Dad’s responses to these, but you can read them on his blog (that’s why I put the links below…) So, instead I’ll post my opinions on these points.

Yes, it does make children happy, at least in the short term. And, I think that this is the reason that most people convince themselves that this lie is okay. I know that’s certainly true in my case. The one thing that I would be willing to bet is never considered; does this belief in Santa make them happier at Christmas time than they would be if they didn’t believe?

Steven Law suggests that lying to them deliberately about things like this can teach them to become better “truth detectors”. He further goes on to quantify that “educational fibbing” isn’t quite lying, that it’s more of a practical joke. I disagree with him here. First, to me, educational fibbing would be a lie to explain a naturally made situation. For example: Where do babies come from? The storks bring them. That is an educational fib. It’s a lie that’s told to children about a real-life situation because they’re too young to understand the answer. However, in the case of Santa, he’s entirely fictitious. As such, telling lies about Santa does not, in my mind constitute an “educational fib”. And, as I pointed out a moment ago, this is one world-wide conspiracy that’s embedded into every facet of our culture. It’s way deeper than a joke…unless you count what the robots were doing to the humans in the movie the Matrix as a joke (completely replacing their reality with a made up one), in which case it’s hilarious. A “fun joke” would be the government taking your Social Security Money, and make you believe that there is a Social Security fund, only to tell you when you really need it that there’s no such thing as Social Security. That’s fun, and totally harmless right? No one gets angry over that. Why should kids be any different?

Yes, everyone needs something to believe in and hope is a powerful thing. However, why must all of these beliefs and hopes be extrinsic? Why can’t we teach children to believe in themselves for a change?

Okay, yes. It is fun for adults. However, just because it’s fun does that make it ethically correct? I’m sure that President Clinton found his rendezvous with Ms. Lewinski to be “fun”, but that certainly wasn’t ethical.

Number 5 just baffles me. It’s useful for controlling behavior? Granted, I’m not arguing that children shouldn’t behave themselves, we live in a civilized world. However, there are many tools for controlling their behavior. The most effective is: teach them to control their own behavior. It’s a novel concept, I know, it is years ahead of its time. All joking aside, this is like rationalizing that it’s okay to lie to people so that we can get them to act how we want them to act or to do what we want them to do. It’s a good thing the government hasn’t adopted that philosophy.

The last point seems the weakest to me. Sure, telling someone that there is a Santa and getting them to believe in it and then telling them later that there is no Santa is potentially damaging. However, not telling them about Santa at all isn’t damaging in any way. If they’ve never been told that there is a Santa, then the truth won’t be damaging at all because they’ve never been deceived. It's the deception that is damaging, the act of finding out that you've been betrayed, not the truth in and of itself.

Some blog-readers comment that it’s basically okay to lie to children since they don’t understand it anyway. If that’s the case my question back is “at what point do you tell them truth?” If you’ve been lying to them because they don’t understand and you can get away with it, do you automatically own-up as soon as they do understand, or do you keep the lie going?

Some other readers suggest that explaining the myth of Santa is fine, however, actively engaging in the Santa pretense is a different matter altogether. Another reader points out that a child psychologist says that it’s a rite of passage for children to learn the truth about Santa after believing in him. His argument is that this helps children understand that the world can be a place full of lies and misinformation and that they shouldn’t take everything at face value. It introduces them to the concept of the lie in the first place. While I see his point, I’m not entirely convinced that this is the most effective way of accomplishing that task.

One angry reader on Pea Soup wrote “Are you kidding me?? Santa is just a fun part of Christmas. No, he is not the essence of Christmas. That would be Jesus Christ as we celebrate His coming as the true reason of Christmas.”  He goes on to say that the author is on the wrong soapbox and that they should be preaching against TV and Radio. But I digress, this is news to me. I had always thought that the “true meaning of Christmas” was for the Roman Catholic Church to make an official holiday coincide with the pagan Winter Solstice festival so that it was easier to convert them. Weird. Also, to this person I would pose this question; if the essence of Christmas is about Christ, then why do many Christmas traditions pre-date Christianity? And what about non-Christians who celebrate Christmas? To say that the responses to these articles are varied from the sane and polite to the downright rude and facetious is a bit of an understatement. For example; one reader responded by saying that we should just ban all fictional works of all types. Clearly, he is missing the point entirely.

As I read through these things I am reminded of a topic for a future discussion, but one that I’ll touch on here. Is it right or ethical for us as adults to force our worldview and our beliefs onto our children because we think it’s in their best interests? There are some adults that I know that absolutely will not believe certain things no matter how much evidence that you throw at them. And they will get literally upset with you if you shatter some of their other illusions (such the fact that humans are genetically descended from common ancestors with apes). What if kids are the same way? What if they really want to believe and we rob them of that? Is that just as much of a disservice to their well-being as lying and then telling the truth later?

I tried researching actual bona fide research journals to see what the “experts” had to say on the matter. There were some arguments that pointed out that parents who act out the roles of Santa have parallels to fetishism, ambivalence and narcissism. There was also an article that used the term “Santa Claus” in reference to make-believe political bills whose concepts are so unrealistic that they will never work. The one thing that I did not find was any kind of empirical evidence to support this debate one way or the other. There are absolutely no studies that offer up concrete proof that this is or isn’t healthy for our children. For now, this debate seems destined to remain in the realm of the theoretical.

Note: There are quite a lot of interesting responses both for and against this on the various blogs that I posted below. If this is one that interests you then I encourage you to read through them.

References:

Grand Canyon University: Philosophy 305 – Ethical Thinking in the Liberal Arts. Module 2. Prof. Scott Douglas.

http://peasoup.typepad.com/peasoup/2009/12/the-ethics-of-santa.html

http://loveofallwisdom.com/2009/12/reflections-on-the-ethics-of-santa/

http://www.portfolio-remix.com/avalon_moore/2011/12/the-questionable-ethics-of-santa-claus.html

http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2009/12/santa_claus_and_ethics.php

http://www.philosophyetc.net/2007/05/is-santa-lie.html

http://www.noradsanta.org/en/real.html

http://philosophydad.blogspot.com/2008/11/santa-is-tool.html

http://philosophydad.blogspot.com/2008/12/more-lying.html

Cluley, Robert (2011) The organization of Santa: fetishism, ambivalence and narcissism. The Journal of Organization. Nov, 18, 2011. Vol 18. No. 6 Pgs. 779-794. Retrieved from Sage Online.

Ethics, Morals, Faith & Happiness

[Johnathan Clayborn]
The class I'm taking right now is Philosophy 305 - Ethics in the Liberal Arts. It's an interesting class, and yet, at the same time I get the feeling that it's going to be a very long class as well. The questions that were posed this week

Do you agree with Plato that eudaimonia is a direct result of living ethically? Why or why not? Support your claims with logical reasoning, examples, and evidence.

First, a definition: Eudaimonia. Eudaimonia is a Greek word commonly translated as happiness or welfare; however, "human flourishing" has been proposed as a more accurate translation. In Aristotle's works, eudaimonia was used as a term for the highest human good, and so it is the aim of practical philosophy, including ethics and political philosophy, to consider (and also experience) what it really is, and how it can be achieved.

So, the question is: can humans be happy, flourish and achieve their best good through the direct result of living ethically? Why or why not?

Me: In this particular case, no, I disagree with Plato's claim that eudaimonia is the result of living ethically. I do think that living ethically plays a role in our overall happiness, however I think that it is only one of many different facets to our happiness. Maybe it's because I'm a psych major, but I also think that Maslow's hierarchy of needs playing into our overall happiness as well. I mean, I can live ethically all I want, but if I my basic human needs are not met, then I would still be unhappy. Of course, if I lied, cheated and stole my way into meeting my basic human needs, I would be unhappy also. This is sort of in line with a conversation I had with a colleague a few weeks ago. We were discussing the old adage "money doesn't buy happiness". It turns out, according to research data, that it does...at least up to $75,000/year. After that money can't buy happiness. I saw the point the researchers were making, but my friend didn't. So I posed a hypothetical question to him; suppose that you are a low-income family. You fit the legal criteria of "working poor". You are the sole income provider. After paying your bills you barely have any money left and are living paycheck to paycheck. You don’t have much sick time left at work and your boss gets pissed off when people take time off of work. Now, suppose that your car breaks down and your son gets sick. You don’t have enough money to fix the car and take your boy to the hospital. You don’t have any friends or family who can loan you the money. As a result, you have to make a choice; do you put the needs of the entire family first and fix the car so that you can keep your job which pays for the house, the food, etc, or do you put the needs of your son over those of the entire family and get him seen by a doctor and risk loosing your job? It's a Kobayashi Maru and definitely not an easy choice. No matter which answer you choose, you will undoubtedly be unhappy. This is a situation that a person with more money wouldn't even have to contemplate, and yet, as a working-poor person you're not doubt going to face sleepless nights. And then, of course, there's the option of engaging in illegal activities in order to acquire the necessary funds to do both, but then you're violating your ethics and are also unhappy. Tying this all back to the original question; I don't think that Plato was ever faced with situations like these. I think he's got part of the answer, but overall I think he's wrong.

Now, at this point I am the only person in the class who disagrees with Plato. Everyone else is saying "yep!", or "sure can!", etc. I'm paraphrasing there, but it's the same rhetoric over and over. As a result my question response, as usual, quickly becomes a hot topic.

Here are some of the responses that I got: Mr. J.R. wrote: "I don’t agree that money buys happiness. God provides all of the food and health that we need. Money buys stuff. Stuff does not equal happiness. I have been around people from all walks of life and it certainly seems that those who live simple lives are happier then the wealthy. I myself live in a low income family an I have never lost a night of sleep over it. We have many trials in this life but God has always carried us through."

Really? Here was my response to him: "Respectfully, I disagree. Here's why:

1. It's been scientifically proven that up to $75,000/year an increase in money does also increase your happiness. This is not an avocation that we should be greedy. Nor it is a statement that money is the end-all, be-all of happiness, but it is evidence that money does play a factor.

2. God obviously wants people to have money. Church tithes are often between 10% - 20%. If money did not play a factor into happiness, then why wouldn't church tithes be 100%?

3. God does not provide food or health or shelter, money does. I cannot pay my landlord with prayer. I cannot buy groceries with prayer. God may lead me to a job which provides me with adequate income, but God does not miraculously cause this "stuff" to materialize magically in my home. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely believe in God. But I also take my faith in a pragmatic approach. The Bible states that God helps those who help themselves. There's even the parable about making money grow in Matthew and in Luke.

 In answering the hypothetical situation I posed earlier there are no right answers. No matter which choice you make you will be sad or stressed out. You will not be happy. Why are you unhappy? Because you don’t have the money to pay for both items. If you could afford to pay for both, then you wouldn't be unhappy. Hence, money does play a role in your overall happiness. But, money does not equal happiness. Money without faith will not bring you happiness. The "stuff" that money buys will not bring you happiness. There's more to it than that; happiness is a complex thing affected by many different facets of life."

J.R. said “Sir you have a very well thought out opinion but I believe that it is a misguided one. First of all the bible does not say that God helps those who help themselves. This is not at all a core theme found in the bible. It is actually quite the opposite, God helps those who cannot help themselves. The bible does say that we should work and work as if we are working for the Lord, but by no means is any of our faith put into how much money we make. We do have practical decisions to make regarding money and how we use it, but the concept of the more money we make the happier we are just is not true. There is no scientific proof that those who make 75 thousand are happier than those who don’t because there is no way to measure happiness. Money is simply a tool that we use to keep track of our assets. It was not always like this though. In ancient times, assets were measured by livestock and land. Everything is a gift. The fact that some have the ability to earn more then others is a gift from God. So the core principle here is that God is the initial provider not money. Thank you again for your opinion, I enjoy reading your posts.”

I replied with this: “I appreciate that you recognize that I've given my opinion some thought. I think that this is going to be a topic where we are going to have to agree to disagree. I can cite many examples from the bible where the message that God helps those who help themselves is the prevailing message. There is also scientific proof that those who make more money are happier; they've conducted studies and they've asked people exactly "on a scale from 1 to 10, how happy are you". Sure, there is a measure of subjectivity to the test, but it can still be measured.”  

And then there was Mr. C. N.: "Hey Johnathan, In my opinion happiness comes from appreciating what you have. The reason why people are unhappy with there financial situation is because they are comparing it to what others have. I believe that money is a facture in a persons comfort, but people who live very modestly and small are sometimes the happiest. The world pressures you to think that you need the big house, the big car and the beautiful spouse to be happy. Jesus taught us to live simply. Remember, in his ministry, Jesus had no home or income. He lived in God's spirit. He was truly happy and He wants us to follow in His footsteps. There is nothing wrong with living comfortably, but it should not determined the happiness of an individual if they are at peace with God."

First, I don’t see how the hypothetical situation that I posed above has anything to do with comparing what I have to my neighbors. The basic principle of the argument is that you can't afford to care for your own family and either choice you make will lead to mental suffering or unhappiness. What does that have to do with the Jones'? Nevertheless, my response was thus: "I hope that you didn't get the implication that I was agreeing that people should lead large, extravagant lives, not at all. There's nothing wrong with living modestly. However, I also look at the world much more pragmatically than most. Sure, Jesus didn't have income or a house, but he also had the ability to grow or catch his own food, something that most of us can't do today. And he really didn't suffer from sickness or injury (until his crucifixion anyway). So, you have a person who doesn't have to pay for food (let's not forget about the miracles that he performed with the loaves and the fish and turning water into wine...) and someone who never gets sick and has the ability to miraculously heal those around him. Of course, Jesus would have very little need for money indeed. However, since I'm not Jesus, I'm not able to multiply food,  I have to buy it instead. And I certainly can't heal my family, so I have to pay a doctor to do that. I can follow the teachings of Jesus and love my fellow man all day long (and I do), but that act alone does not solve the very real problems of making sure that my family is fed, or that they are healthy, etc. And to that end, money can lead to happiness insomuch that I rest my worried mind. After all, didn't Jesus end up donating the money that he came into contact with those less fortunate? Could you imagine all of the happiness and health that could be spread around the world if churches themselves would tone the opulence down a touch and instead focused on feeding the sick and hungry and poor? I'm sure money would make them quite happy, and healthy. And what about monetary donations to children's hospitals who help destitute children with cancer or other serious ailments? Money in and of itself is not bad, and I certainly don’t think that's what Jesus was saying (after all, the tithe is only 10%, so he must want you to keep some of it...). It's not that money is bad, it's that greed is bad. After all, doesn't the books of Matthew and Luke use a parable about increasing your profits in a positive way? (Matthew 25:14-30, Luke 19:12-27). In a pragmatic sense, peace with God is wonderful, and it will certainly help you achieve overall happiness, but it wont provide you with medicine, food or clothing."

And then there was Mrs. C. L. Who lit the powder-keg with one simple line: "How does one's faith play into this?"

I told her: "I think that faith would fall into the category of needs as described by Maslow. Faith provides people with a purpose, with hope. I also think that faith has a direct correlation into the particular morality that a person follows, and as such, the actions that they are permitted and not permitted to do. For example; Jews are not permitted to eat certain foods, and neither are Muslims as their faith prohibits it. Does this make them unhappier? Or does their faith counteract that?"

Bewilderingly she wrote back with this: "That was my point, one's faith (ethics are, of coarse, included in faith) is really the only true happiness. That is the happiness that Plato speaks about...happiness in every aspect of life, the good and the bad. Is that kind of happiness possible without God and obedience to Him?"

Which garnered this reply from me: "I don't see ethics as included in a person's faith. In my opinion faith controls a person morals while society dictates ethics. Ethics are decided in the court of law and the court of public opinion whereas morals are influenced by faith. I do not think that we were making the same point. If you got the impression that I was saying that a person's faith was all they needed to be happy then I must apologize as I don’t think I phrased my explanation the right way. The problem with the type of  logic that you pose is that God leads you to happiness, so therefore God must be the only path to happiness. What about Buddhists? Are they unhappy? They don't believe in God. What about Wiccans? Or Zoroastrians? Or Muslims? There are many different religions with different beliefs. Is it necessary for them to believe in God in order to be happy, or is it simply that belief in something is enough?"

There was only 1 person in class who responded intelligently to my post. We'll call her RF. She asked "So then would you agree that achieving a state of eudaimonia would depend on what you need (individually) to feel happy? Would you also agree that the morality therein depends on a personal level of values, ethics, and standards?". A fair and intelligent question, finally! My response was "Yes, and yes. Absolutely. Some people would be perfectly happy being alone or having very few social interactions. However, other people would be miserable by this experience and would only be happy by lots of social interaction. Clearly, happiness and the path to happiness is unique and individualized. And yes, I think that each person has a different moral and ethical standard. Some people never steal, some people only steal in certain circumstances. Some people never lie, others lie to protect people, others lie because they think it's fun. I think that personal experience, family tradition and faith all play a role in shaping a person's moral views."

Now, all of this ties into the question that posed earlier in the week: Identify unique characteristics of moral/ethical principles. How are they different or how are they similar to principles found in law, etiquette, and religious commands?

One of my classmates had this to say: "Morals and ethics touch each of us on a common ground as human beings. Whereas principles found in law, etiquette and religious command vary from cultures, countries and people. Moral/ethical principles are what separate us from that of being animals"

To which I responded with this: "Having studied ethics and morality in the past I find it fascinating that so many people who have the same religion and the same nationality can have such a wildly different outlook on ethical or moral behavior. It makes me wonder what other intangible elements are at work there and whether we can ever truly understand what causes some people to have one set of morals and ethics and their brother or their sister to have a different set." This statement got two separate replies and two completely different schools of thought.

The original author wrote back with this: "I have to wonder if sometimes if the difference is in level of guilt, shame or embarrassment a person feels for violating a moral/ethical standard that makes personal ethics waver from person to person in the same pew. Or even beyond that the amount of conviction a person ALLOWS themselves to feel." And my reply was: "I agree, guilt definitely plays a role in the limit that our ethical and moral considerations are bound. However, I think that there are probably certain situations where most people would go against their ethical beliefs, especially if they were coerced or blackmailed. But, since I personally view ethics and morals and slightly different, the question would be will everyone violate their morals? For example; I think that most people would steal in order to save someone they loved from being tortured (ethics), but would people kill someone in order to save a loved one (morals)?"  No response was given to my question.

The other response to my post was quite interesting indeed, for lack of a better word. Mr. J. R. again with this: "I guess the big question remains...Is there an objective moral law or are morals just a matter of opinion?"

I said: "It's been my experience that morality and theology go hand in hand. That being the case, there are almost certainly cases where morality will differ from culture to culture. As an example; today it is morally reprehensible in American culture to kill a child. However, in Ancient Greece the Spartans used to commit infanticide for children that they deemed "unworthy". The practice of infanticide still occurs in some parts of Asia where over-population is a serious issue. Here in the states we view it as an immoral act; in those countries they view it as an everyday part of life. Most Americans are self-righteous enough to say that, of course, our morality is right, and theirs is wrong. But who's to say for certain? We know how to do what's right because it's explained in the Bible. What about people who worship a different God? Are they right also? It's a slippery slope sometimes."

J.R.: "We call it abortion but it is the same thing. I think all people have one thing in common. That is the fact that for the most part we all adhere to some common moral principles. For example-it is wrong to kill and steal. Now sometimes people rationalize but just about all people agree on these core principles. The reason for this- is the existence of objective moral law, truth, and one law giver."

Me: "Well, I can certainly agree with the sentiment that infanticide and abortion can be classified as loosely the same concept. And I do think that you are correct about there being a common core set of moral codes, and interestingly I also agree that it's because there is one moral code giver. The questions I would pose back are these: 1. If the common moral code is not to take human life and to be kind to your fellow human, how do serial killers and mass murderers fit into this philosophy? Are they merely "defective" in some way? Or do they follow a different set of morals? 2. If everyone more or less has the same moral code and the reason for this is that there is one law giver (God), then would that suggest that underneath all of the ceremony many of the world's religions actually praise the same God? Or is there a different explanation?"

J.R: “Good questions. Serial killers are a product of a sick, sinful, and fallen world. Most serial killers were severely harmed as children which caused catastrophic psychological harm which is why they act the way that they do. This is why raising children the right way is absolutely crucial. Ultimately, we are all responsible for our decisions no matter how we were raised. As far as other religions go, a common misconception is that we are all worshiping the same God in a different way or refer to God by a different name. This is not true. All religions are fundamentally different. They differ in their theology, and in regards to sin, salvation, and the afterlife. There is only one God so we cant all be right about who this God is because all religions have a completely different opinion of who he is. The bible says that Jesus is the way the truth and the life and that nobody gets to the father except through him.”

Me: “Great conversation, Jeff. Two more questions: 1. If serial killers are the product of their environment as you propose, how do you explain the fact that all serial killers have a brain that is physically different from ours, so much so that it can be visibly detected by MRIs? 2. How do you know for certain that the other faiths are wrong? In the book of Genesis God destroyed the tower of Babel. He scattered mankind to the corners of the earth and confounded their languages. If God is omniscient surely he would have known that such an action would have resulted in the degeneration of Mankind into different sub-cultures with their own values and opinions. Surely he would have realized that a one-size fits all religion would no longer work for the world ad provided each religion with a suitable way to worship him. If God is as powerful and complex and religion posits him to be, then how we can we as mere mortals ever claim to truly understand him for certain?”

There was no further response.

But, this does open some interesting concepts to ponder. Can eudaimonia be achieved merely through ethics as Plato suggests? I say no. Eudaimonia was a concept first posed by Aristotle, not Plato. Aristotle takes virtue and its exercise to be the most important constituent in eudaimonia but does acknowledge the importance of external goods such as health, wealth, and beauty. By contrast, the Stoics make virtue necessary and sufficient for eudaimonia and thus deny the necessity of external goods. By this reasoning alone, eudaimonia is more than just a blind belief that living ethically will bring about happiness.

The second interesting concept is this: are ethics and morals truly the same and interchangeable as many would suggest? In my mind, no. There are many different types of ethics. There are personal ethics and there are business ethics. There are ethics for particular groups (usually called "codes of conduct). Every group, culture and society in the world has a set of ethical parameters that they follow. However, every person in the world also has a different and unique set of ethical codes as well. some people consider it ethically inappropriate to steal from the company they work for, however, they think that it's ethically acceptable to defraud a different company to get free things. To me, as I'm sure that you probably picked up from my responses, ethics are rules to which we adhere to help us navigate successfully through society and other interactions with our fellow humans. And people's ethical codes are wildly different. Morals are on a whole different level altogether. Morality is the set of codes by which you live to reconcile your own mind and your own consciousness. Typically, we feel at peace in our consciousness through the instruction of a supernatural deity (ie: God), however, even Atheists have a moral code. Morals tend to have a deeper meaning and significance, they are how you hold yourself accountable for your actions.

My response to the that second question reiterates this point: "In my experience moral and ethical decisions are choices and guidelines that are intensely personal. In legislative mandates the courts dictate how you should act or not act in a given situation. In etiquette, the "rule of the land" and the social expectations rule the day. With religious mandates the choices come from God (or at least on his behalf). But moral or ethical implications tend to be more vague, and far more personal. No one really sets these rules for you, they are yours to figure out on your own. And, often enough, these guidelines intersect and overlap the principles of law, religion, and etiquette. In many cases law, etiquette and religion dont always agree anyway, and yet your "moral compass" is supposed to help you navigate these discrepancies."

I find it interesting that so many people blindly say that you have to believe, not just in God, but in their God in order to be happy. Faith is enough, but faith isn't necessarily religious. The basic tenant of faith, any faith is the belief that we are something more than the sum of our parts.

At least my professor has some reason. He said “Good post - I heard that once and it was followed with "not even a million dollars could make you happy" to which I said "yeah, but it sure would be nice to try!"So if happiness in that sense isn't the right motivation, what is?”

I closed this week’s discussion with this final thought: Thanks Professor, I try to be very pragmatic in my approach to the world. I try to balance religion and science. I find it interesting that although Plato says that all you need is ethics, Aristotle says that wealth, health and ethics are all facets to achieving happiness.

In my own personal view I think that happiness is a combination of the following areas:

1. Following your own ethical and moral code.

2. A sense of purpose, and/or the feeling that you are wanted or appreciated.

3. having your basic physical needs met: (food, shelter, clothing, etc).

4. Having affectionate relationships (friends, spouse, etc).

5. A sense of legacy. (children, grandchildren, knowing that you will be remembered after you die).

6. Faith. This is not the same as religion, but it could be. It could be faith in God, or it could be faith that humanity is good and just, etc.

These things may not be important to other people, but those factors directly contribute to my own happiness.

I leave you, dear readers, with these closing thoughts: what things truly make you happy? Is your faith alone enough, or is happiness a complex state that encompasses many different parts of your life?