Editorial May 20, 1967 Issue

Happiness and Morality

William Milford Correll

Among those who advocate what is called the new morality are some who assert that the aim for their life is just to be happy. They advocate rejecting responsibility, going off by themselves, and doing just what they please. It is a kind of isolation, a lifting of all rules, a nonthink attitude. They even claim that this helps them face themselves, let go of all inhibitions and automatically be happy. Drugs may figure in the effort to attain the happy attitude.

Obviously there is little or no attempt to define happiness, for this end is a vague, undefined, call-it-what-you-please goal. It may even be just a throwing off of restrictions, a rebellion against definition, a dream state. It is said in support of this approach that when you do away with all rules and standards you get down to more genuine relationships and more honest attitudes. But this whole extreme posture is material in its approach. It is largely predicated on what one may feel through the material senses. It is shortsighted, for it fails to take into consideration the element of evil and its destructive influence in human experience. This is its fatal flaw.

Happiness is not a material condition; it does not rest on the testimony of the material senses. Mrs. Eddy states in the textbook, Science and Health: "Happiness is spiritual, born of Truth and Love. It is unselfish; therefore it cannot exist alone, but requires all mankind to share it." ^{Science and Health, p. 57;} An accurate definition of happiness thus punctures the illusion conjured up by those who do not wish to be guided by the divine Principle of harmony.