General Form of the Theory

Each person is responsible for their own happiness.

There are, of course, limits. We are limited by our resources, both in our abilities and our tools with which we might create fulfillment. One might also propose that, as the universe is in all probability deterministic, we have no choice and happiness is illusory. However, since human knowledge itself is limited and the realm of a free-will consciousness is the only practical means by which one can pretend to improve one's lot, we may as well assume we are destined to achieve betterment and risk failure rather than try nothing and guarantee it.

We may also here presume that, on a large enough scale, happiness becomes a zero-sum game. Or, if this offends one's illusions too much, one *may* use the common formulation: "You can't make everyone happy." (Significantly different, but sufficient for our purposes in this context.) Hence we will at least conclude that at times one will be cognizant of a trade-off between one's own happiness and that of another. (Let us refer to a positive happiness as "construction" and a negative happiness as "destruction" or "damage".) So too here we will make a distinction between active and passive trade-off: that active trade-offs require conscious actions, whereas passive ones do not. Further, let us delineate the four general types of happiness:

* Constructive to self
* Constructive to others
* Destructive to others
* Destructive to self

Finally, let us also assume that destruction for constructive purposes may still be construction.

These are the beginnings of a formal construct, but I don't wish to get bogged down at the moment. It should be evident enough that each person can choose (as much as there is choice) to concentrate on construction of self and others, or their destruction, or some combination thereof.

It should also be evident that "players" wishing to provide the highest levels of construction will do best to avoid or minimize contact with players seeking destruction. That is, perhaps, the most useful corollary. There is, of course, the option of destroying the destroyers, necessary in some cases, but this is usually better avoided. (Monster hunters frequently becoming monsters themselves, etc.)

However, we may also here assume that the personalities most in need of reform are those which are simultaneously other-destructive and self-destructive, the worst of these actively pursuing both goals. These are, essentially, terrorist or anti-social personalities: vengeful and spiteful; simultaneously self-righteous and self-flagellating.

And perhaps this sounds like all of us at times, if we're honest with ourselves--we find that we can be both cruel to others and self-defeating. The real test, though, is when we have nothing to gain from a set of actions but pain: the monster in us will purposefully choose the action that it believes will cause the most misery.

The most disturbing thing about humanity is just how often people give in to that desire. The response itself is, in all probability, biological, and it's difficult to know if that makes it any worse or better. Better, in that it's perhaps understandable through the insanity of illogic, but worse in that correction seems socially implausible...