What happens when the conduct, that is some code according to how we place ourselves in any place and time, converges into happiness, that this conceptually invalid in theory (only) modifies our behavior to the point of converting hedonistic principles.
To maximize the greatest good.
But what if the greatest good, translates into the behavior of others in a fictitious or superstitious sense. What we call this presents itself, as an anomaly.
In reverse, the response to such idea. Where if happiness were denoted as a crime. We might find obnoxious in most. When the latter is true. When the former is false, this is what we see as a transference of thought. Whereas the hedonist interpretation no longer exists.
So back into the original query, that the very framework, or the capacity to existentially reason positions an examination. An examination of the kind that invisibly casts a light where the shadowy figure enters itself as though providing evidence to the contrary. That, maybe what if the absence of happiness were a question to answer in ourselves? Happiness if put into a kind of rubric. The question is: what if happiness were something that in the absence of it, made us think better - or - if happiness thought of as a lie caused us to think less.
The point I make is clearly not hidden.
Beneath the surface of our unconsciously programmed consumer minds, we as consumers, adopt the vision of what to attain is the good life in order to maximize happiness. This we classify as consumers to attain the highest we can even if it means we do it in isolation from each other. As long as we as consumers obey the cause, our relationship to happiness, is programmed as an unconditional ideal.
Where in this do we find happiness is the awareness we automatically obey as consumers in it.
My answer to help think of what happiness should be. The dichotomy between what you do if you are prepared to die for it.
This dichotomy is twofold. One idea presents that if you were to choose your life's ambition were in sacrifice, the ultimate sacrifice being held as in death.
Sacrifice and life itself.
If you enlist in the army, the main premise is in dying for country.
If you were to become an astronaut, the mission is taken at the mercy that if you enter the mission, you are willing to know that death is a choice you are consciously giving to commit to the mission...
Both instances, in serving for country, you enlist in knowing that you are legally entrusted that your life may be taken at any moment under no voluntary measure in of itself.
Is this what we identify ourselves with, happiness.
This argument is in fear of what happiness truly promotes given that it is universally contingent. We universally accept that we apply ourselves, a god given right, to maximize potential to the greatest good possible. We universally apply ourselves in thinking that everyone's intention should be.
My objective as such is asking the reader, that they instead, not satisfy that need in cogency of it. That if what I am saying is founded upon maximizing the greatest good for the greatest common denomination requires a complete rejection of consumerism.
============
IF we ask if there is a meaning to life. That is existential. What we confuse with as existential in its ponderance, in return excuse the right we have to forfeit what happiness is if it negatively affects the outcome of someone else other. Be it individual or in group theory. It is how, what I argue is to invert our idea of how happiness, our relation to it, suffers.
============
In conclusion:
MY main thesis is that in order to attain happiness, the greatest good, is to maximize the outcome. However, that if the outcome does not require of it a condition that happiness should maximize; that is what minimizes opposite its calamity. The effect of happiness can only be rendered as useless. Therefore, to think in a sufficient manner of luxury as opposed to infirmary. To that effect, happiness is to be thought of not as consumer finds use for it, because we are operationally aware of such motives.
