“Morality is not the doctrine of how we may make ourselves happy, but how we may make ourselves

worthy of happiness.”

Morality came from the Latin word moralitas, meaning “manner, character, proper behavior”, in
which it is the conduct or rules that an individual or group of people adhere to believe that these things
to be some sense obligatory. In addition, it also an individual’s code of behavior based on religious or
philosophical principles that is generally accepted by a society or community. However, Immanuel Kant,
a famous philosopher, said that morality is not to make us happy; rather, the whole purpose of it is to do
the right thing just for the sake of doing it. In contrast to Kant’s idea, there are other people who find
that “If you are moral, you are happy”, which is what a happiness-based moral system professed like the
Eudaimonism. But a problem arises when we base morality on happiness because there are some
people who do not know for certain what will make them happy. Kant believed that the basis of
morality is the ability of humans to reason and such that it is never relative but rather, it is absolute:
either it falls if it is right all the time or it’s not right at all. The actions that we perform are judged based
on the moral standards of the society. Thus, he also said that emotions are not a reliable source when
making moral actions since these are not stable in the sense that they are constantly changing. As such,
happiness as an emotion may vary from person to person depending on how they project the meaning
of happiness. A person is happy whenever the events of their liking happen or they met their
satisfaction.

According to Kant, there are reasons why moral principle of one’s own happiness is false: (1)
experience contradicts the pretense that well-being always proportions itself to good conduct; (2)
contributes nothing at all to the establishment of morality, since making someone happy is quite
different from making him good; and (3) it bases morality on incentive that undermines [morality] and
destroys all its sublimity. It appears for me that these reasons are absolutely correct because morality is
a guide on how we live our life. But on the other hand, happiness is our desire that we still continue to
seek for it. Kant describes happiness as “continuous well-being, enjoyment of life and complete
satisfaction with one’s condition.” As a human being, we do seek for more and we don’t know what is
pleasurable and attainable unless we set a clear goal. However, there are some instances that a moral
life will also result a certain satisfaction. Morality is like a special spice that supplements our standard of
living in which it molds our emotional needs in attaining real happiness. This is because in my own
experience, whenever I do good deeds, I feel overwhelmed and my heart and mind are purely in a state
of happiness. I feel comfortable when I help and treat other people in a good way. This proves that you
and I can be happy when we do good deeds. Therefore, the principle of happiness is based on either
physical or moral feeling. But, doing morality just for the sake of attaining happiness without the means
of sincerity is not right. We do morality because this will build us to have a great character and thus
happiness may depend on how we see it.
Mechanics

1. Each group should have 2 REPRESENTATIVES.

2. First game is the ELIMINATION ROUND.
3. PLAYER A in each group should be the one who would act the given words in order for PLAYER B
in each group should be the one to guess those particular words acted by Player A for a TIME
DURATION OF 30 SECONDS.
4. Once, Player B guess the word is EQUIVALENT TO 1 POINT.
5. Here’s the TWIST. The 2 GROUPS with the SMALLER NUMBER OF POINTS will proceed to the
FINAL ROUND.
6. In the FINAL ROUND, PLAYER A and PLAYER B will take turns in guessing the word(s) that is/are
shown on the screen.
7. The lowest score WINS THE GAME.