An age-old question that continues its relevancy today is whether or not material possessions contribute to individual happiness. Many conclude that acquiring and owning material possessions will not bring true joy, however, it is evident that modern society places great value on material items, much more so than in the past. While it is true that material possessions are not essential to happiness, or provide a genuine meaning in life, there is something that can be said about owning property. It can be argued the happiness that possessions provide, while it may be momentary, is still considered happiness. However, many criticize the investment in luxuries as many believe indulgent purchases merely provide fleeting satisfaction. Yet, it remains unclear whether material possessions such as wealth, technology, or private property within society today are seen as a luxury, or rather as part of the necessity for daily living. Many strive to work better jobs for a higher paying salary in order to afford possessions of material wealth disguised as what some would consider a “good quality of life”. Overall, this paper will argue the position that although many believe material possessions are not essential to happiness, human nature compels individuals to continue to strive for more than what they currently possess or need. To better understand why modern society holds material possessions at such a high standard, it is important to compare and contrast the views of philosophers such as John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau along with their thoughts on human nature.
According to John Locke, human nature allows individuals to be selfish. In a state of nature, all people are equal and independent, and natural law allows human beings the right to defend their own “life, health, liberty, or possessions” (Locke, 1690, p. 107). It is important to note how Thomas Jefferson later replaced “possessions” with “the pursuit of happiness”, inferring that property ownership equates individual contentment. The most important source for understanding Locke’s justification for individual entitlement to private property and possessions is Chapter V of The Second Treatise of Government, “Of Property”. Locke begins with the idea that each individual possesses ownership of their own body, and all labour performed with that body. He goes on to justify how property can be defined as anything one mixes their labour into through his example of picking acorns and gathering apples; “He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. No body can deny but the nourishment is his” (Locke, 1690, p. 116). According to Locke, the point of possession is the moment an individual expends their labour. However, Locke makes a point to suggest a limit to this labour. In relation to the Lockean Proviso, one is not to take more than can be used before spoiling, for this goes against natural law. It is important to note how the creation of currency stems from the attempt to prevent individuals from accumulating more than can be reasonably consumed. In Section 50 of his chapter on property, Locke goes on to state:
“Men have made practicable out of the bounds of society, and without compact, only by putting a value on gold and silver, and tacitly agreeing in the use of money: for in governments, the laws regulate the right of property, and the possession of land is determined by positive constitutions.” (Locke, 1690, p. 125)
However, it is reasonable to suggest how Locke could have never anticipated a modern society today where the wealthiest 1% receives 82% of global wealth (Meredith, 2018). He most likely would have not been able to embrace the idea of so few individuals owning so much. In his An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke attempts to provide a mechanical explanation for modern society by discovering the laws that govern human behaviour. Within his writing, he suggests the mind begins with a blank slate and is formed solely through experiences and education. Regarding his concept of happiness, he writes:
“If it be farther asked, what moves desire? I answer happiness and that alone. Happiness and misery are the names of two extremes…Happiness then in its full extent is the utmost pleasure we are capable of, and misery the utmost pain.” (Locke, 1970, p. 166)
Locke goes on to illustrate a distinction between “true pleasures” and “false pleasures”. This concept will be important to understand when analyzing whether or not property is essential for happiness. For Locke, false pleasures are those that promise immediate gratification but may be followed by more pain. Locke uses the example of alcohol, which may provide short term happiness but is accompanied by unhealthy effects on both the mind and body. Locke believes that many would rather choose short-term pleasures over those activities which provide lasting satisfaction. It should be noted how this idea can be applied to society today. Furthermore, Locke states: “The necessity of pursuing happiness [is] the foundation of liberty…The stronger ties we have to an unalterable pursuit of happiness in general, the more are we free from any necessary determination of our will to any particular action” (Locke, 1970, p. 171). In this passage, Locke determines that happiness is the foundation of liberty, providing the ability to make decisions that benefit long-term interest, as opposed to decisions that may only afford individuals immediate gratification. Moreover, Locke promotes the importance of the pursuit of happiness and further suggests that if individuals were to have no desire for happiness, society would remain content with simple pleasures in a state of nature. The desire for happiness pushes society to strive for more. However, it should be noted that happiness can be considered subjective, and what brings pleasure to one individual may not bring pleasure to another. The only individual who can judge or measure one’s happiness is oneself.
Contrary to certain Lockean beliefs, Jean-Jacques Rousseau argues the emergence of communitarianism in relation to private property and possessions. Rousseau believes individuals are more likely to unite with one another when discussing property, yet, he also argues a strong social divide. According to Rousseau, private property and material possessions create new powers for the rich and furthermore exclude others from everything that is not their property. In general, Rousseau argues the idea that property creates inequalities, and inequalities further create a source of corruption and unhappiness in modern society. Nevertheless, Rousseau’s understanding of property holds as one of the most difficult aspects of his thought. Unlike Locke who dedicates a discussion in the fifth chapter of his Second Treatise of Government, Rousseau’s views on property are instead scattered throughout his writings. However, an explicit discussion of property in some form appears to be near the centre of his political thought. Both in his Discourse on Political Economy and The Social Contract, he argues that private property was at the very foundation of his understanding of the ‘social compact’ (Teichgraeber, 1981, p. 115). According to Rousseau, property is “the most sacred of all the rights of citizenship, and even more important in some respects than liberty itself” (Rousseau, 1913, p. 271). Yet, statements such as this seem to contradict other observations for which Rousseau has been well-known for. In his Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, Rousseau states: “The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society” (Rousseau, 1913, p. 207). For Rousseau, inequality was established with the creation of property and laws surrounding private property. He argues that “man is born free and everywhere he is in chains” (Rousseau, 1913, p. 5). For an individual to experience true happiness, according to Rousseau, the feeling of enjoyment arises only when certain psychological conditions have been satisfied. Rousseau believes in the idea that “a sensitive being whose faculties were perfectly equal to his desires would be a perfectly happy being” (Salkever, 1978, p. 35). Here, he argues the notion of happiness as a sentiment produced by the presence of a balanced soul or being. In relation to Jeremy Bentham’s principle of utility, Rousseau discusses the idea that those who suffer the fewest pains are considered the happiest, and those who feel the fewest pleasures are considered the most miserable (Rousseau, 1762, p. 303). For Rousseau, the path to happiness requires less desire for power and more emphasis on balancing power and will. In relation to philosophers such as Machiavelli who believe humans are naturally greedy for gain, Rousseau believes it is essential to combat this in order for individuals to experience inner peace. Since for many the accumulation of property represents more power, it is reasonable to assume Rousseau advocates for a limit, similar to the Lockean Proviso, in order for individuals to experience true happiness. This is not to say Rousseau would have argued for the abolition of property or possessions, but rather it is more likely he would have encouraged a balance among all aspects of life.
2019-11-20-1574288853