>>>The trouble with stating happiness as goal is that every now and then a new version of an old dogma would pop up and say that everyone is happy when they know their place, because that gives them stability and orientation. Which is just another excuse to reduce the mobility and enforce some sort of social stratification, anywhere between classes and castes.
>>
>>The problem with the idea of happiness is that it is a moving goalpost. When you "achieve" your happiness it will soon become average, nothing special. Then you will need to find another level of happiness. All attachments, whether to material things or mental states, will lead to unhappiness. Non-attachment is the correct approach.
>
>It's actually good that it's moving - we don't want a static world wallowing in its own satisfaction, do we?
>
>Actually, if we aren't satisfied with the current level... was it truly happiness, or just an achievement on the way to it?
>
>If we're talking about material prerequisites to happiness, they're IMO just that - prerequisites. I figure one can't be happy while hungry, cold or ill. But that's as much as the material stuff can do, be an obstacle or not. It can't really make one happy per se, it can just symbolize a fulfillment of a desire. Which then also passes.
>
>There's a beautiful story (a fable?) about an ill king or shah, who could be cured only if he wore a happy man's shirt. He sent his servants all over the country, and they found only one happy man, who didn't have a shirt.

The mental state of happiness is temporary. Once we get whatever it is that we desire, whether material or otherwise, we think we will be be happy. But as soon as we achieve the desired goal our mental state of happiness will begin to become a norm and hence not extra-ordinary anymore, just ordinary. Then we start to look for the next happiness fix.