The Harsh Reality of Happiness, Essay Example

According to the American Declaration of Independence, it is the God-given right of every person to seek happiness. Unfortunately, the historical document does not go further in to the definition or happiness, nor in to the territory of quantifying happiness for use in determining morality in a system like utilitarianism. The implication is that every person should be left to determine his or her own version of happiness. The intersection between morality, reality, and happiness is the theme that seems to tie “The Hanging” by George Orwell, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” by Peter Singer, and Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro together. These works suggest that the pursuit of happiness necessitates the compromise of morality in many cases, and ignoring the reality of the situations in the world.

In all three writings, it is explained that reality is harsh and problematic. Orwell describes his own epiphany about the nature of life, death, and execution during the escort of the prisoner to the gallows. He realizes that, despite the implementation of law, hierarchy, and position, every person on the walk to the gallows was a person and that the mission was to exterminate one. For Kathy and Tommy, the dreams of a deferment on organ donation was something that did not exist, and their position as soulless clones, devoid of value outside of their organs was a foregone conclusion in the eyes of the world. Similarly, Singer points out that our world is plagued by hunger and poverty and that, without intervention, some children in third world countries will die.

These situations all represents internal and external struggles that humans routinely face. Would Orwell have benefitted from expressing his epiphany? Obviously, Kathy and Tommy were destined for their roles as donators, and many people living in affluent nations likely deal with the internal evaluations of their own efforts to be moral. In all cases, moral compromise is made in the name of happiness or, at least, the continuation of the status quo.

In all three cases, the reality of the world is different from the ideal moral image of the world, and strict morality must be compromised in order for the status quo, or that which creates the greatest amount of happiness, to be maintained. Orwell minimizes death and returns to the hierarchies inherent in prison life, despite his realization of the basic humanity of the prisoners he guards. Despite his realization of their humanity, he quickly finds time to laugh over their very human terror over drinks with his peers. The death is therefore minimized and the story is fodder for entertainment rather than reflection. For Tommy, death comes early, as scheduled. His art is meaningless and his hopes and dreams are discarded as a side effect of industry. Singer points out that most people in affluent nations are simply unwilling to make the necessary donations of everything over $50,000. Certainly they could, but the reality differs from the ideal.

When reading these writings, the audience is meant to share in this realization. To live in society and enjoy what it has to offer, individuals necessarily oppose their own moral clarity on issues ranging from percentages of tithes to life and death matters. A person may understand clearly the very human reality of a situation and understand the choice that ought to be moral, but society is not necessarily designed to appeal to that morality. Whether by appealing to the greater good, or existing as an affront to morality, society and the practicality of human existence demands that compromises be made. At time, these compromises can be communicated in writings like these.

In all three cases, the situation is also hopeless. For Tommy and Kathy, society has judged them as soulless clones, and their fates have been sealed since the beginning. Orwell, existing as part of a system in his essay, is forced to continue his existence for his own wellbeing until his term of service has come to an end. Separately, however, there is a choice for those of us fortunate enough to have been born in an affluent nation. Singer suggests that anything over $50,000 could be donated. However, it is rare to encounter a person who is willing to give up the measure of comfort that society affords beyond the necessities of life in order to provide necessities for the less fortunate. We are left with rationalizations that provide comforts in our own minds. In many ways, we are as powerless to end the cycle as Tommy, Kathy, and the young George Orwell.

Power comes from the realization of our own immorality. Orwell’s experience with his own ability for immoral action led him to develop his morality. For those of us in affluent countries, Singer claims that it is helpful to understand our own morality and to know where we stand. At least, according to him, we will be honest with ourselves and have the knowledge of what would make us moral. For Tommy, knowledge did not lead to power, but Kathy learned that her own grim acceptance of her fate was, in the end, the appropriate way in which to live. Modern society can hope for more, but it seems unlikely that we will rise above it as a whole.

These works and those that are similar provide clarity on our own moral standing. Orwell may be unmatched in his talent for articulating his experience with these issues, but it seems certain that most people can think of a similar situation in which the dissonance between morality, reality, and the requirements of comfort became stark enough to make an impact. Looking at the plight of clones or the hypocrisy of claiming morality in a society that seems to condemn third world children to the oncoming train of disease and hunger brings about similar realizations about our own shortcomings, and the reasons why they must exist if we are to live comfortably in modern society. Fortunately, clarity can only lead to a greater understanding of our world, and there is always potential for moral growth when humanity knows where it stands.