While discussing the proper actions one should take to make one’s life meaningful, Kant states that “To assure one’s own happiness is a duty…” (pg.54). This is to prevent the desire from becoming a “…great temptation to transgression of duty“. In the same way, love is another form of duty. Kant is showing that actions following duty and not desire are meaningful and worthwhile but sometimes these duties are our own desires. This becomes even more complicated when one’s happiness infringes on other duties, mostly when they happen to contradict. What duty should one follow when multiple contradict each other? Multiple movies, plays and TV shows revolve around the idea that the best way to love someone is by letting them go, even if it means sacrificing your own happiness. Is this type of self-sacrifice truly worthwhile and morally meaningful? If not, a good portion of the Romance genre can be called into question to determine the rationality behind the decisions made by many of the characters.
One such play, Life is a Dream by Pedro Calderón de la Barca, depicts the story of Segismundo, a man who was locked in a tower from birth, and his escapades when he receives his freedom (Spoilers!). When a lost woman, Rosaura, stumbles upon his tower, he finds himself falling in love with her not knowing she is already engaged to be married. At the end of the play, and finding himself king over Poland, he decides to let Rosaura marry the man she loves, the one who she was engaged too, and instead marries Estrella, a princess. Even though Segismundo was deeply in love with Rosaura throughout the play, he ends up letting her go and be happy instead of forcing her to be his bride. He acted according to his duty by truly loving her and by marrying a princess as was expected by him of his subjects. In doing so, he does not assure himself of his own happiness. By acting according to two duties, his actions mathematically were moral and valuable as following the two duties outweighed the opposing duty of his happiness. But should his happiness taken the forefront of his actions?
If I’m asleep, don’t let me wake. If this is real, don’t let me dream. ~Pedro Calderón de la Barca
Good Evening Emma,
I agree with your discussion about happiness as a duty, as it is noted to be universally accepted to stand for all ends. Although, I do believe that happiness should take priority in for the actor’s duty as it disregards any “intention” that may transgress his duty to maintain his happiness. To further discuss the lack of moral worth the concept of sacrificing one’s happiness for a lover has, is the inconsistency the situation has for the two ends. In essence, Segismundo is treating Resaura as an object that would provide him with a feeling of happiness. At least, that is my outlook on the situation.
Emma, I think that you bring up an interesting point that one’s duty is to their happiness. However, happiness can have many definitions, so it is subjective to each individual, and maybe a jump to say that love brings happiness for all. But for this post, we’ll stick with that definition that love is happiness. You seem to lay this idea out well and show that duties can conflict with one another, and also demonstrate that sometimes it is difficult to choose which duty to follow. I think that this situation is interesting because the main character goes against his happiness for his duty to his people and his country, and what is best for them. Kant may believe that this good intention is good will because he does it for the sake of others, and it may have a positive outcome for his country as well. Overall, I think that it is interesting that even with all the power he wields, he still chooses to let his true love marry the man she loves so that she achieves her happiness, and he does his duty to his country, and this shows how he has good will.