June 29, 2026
Contact: Janese Heavin, heavinj@missouri.edu
Nearly 250 years after the phrase “the pursuit of happiness” first appeared in a founding document, Americans still invoke it as a guiding principle. But what does it actually mean?
As the nation prepares to mark its semiquincentennial, scholars from across the University of Missouri are revisiting the ideas that shaped America’s beginnings. Drawing on expertise in law, classical studies and philosophy, they’re exploring why the pursuit of happiness remains as relevant, and as difficult to define, as ever.
What did the founders mean by happiness?
Carli Conklin is an associate professor and director of the Center for the Study of Dispute Resolution at Mizzou’s School of Law and an associate professor at the Kinder Institute on Constitutional Democracy.
One of the first things she will tell you is that the pursuit of happiness is not a constitutional right.
Rather, the phrase appears in the Declaration of Independence, adopted in 1776. The Constitution ratified more than a decade later established protections of life, liberty and property through due process, but “happiness” does not appear in the document.
That’s why some argue that the inclusion of happiness in the Declaration was little more than rhetorical flourish on the part of Thomas Jefferson and other authors.
Conklin, who wrote “The Pursuit of Happiness in the Founding Era,” isn’t convinced.
“In one telling, the pursuit of happiness sounds nice, but it doesn’t mean a lot,” she said. “So, I started looking into it because Jefferson was so particular about his writing. I couldn’t believe he would insert a glittering generality as one of the inalienable rights that all humans hold no matter what.”
Jefferson didn’t pen the Declaration on his own. Final language reflected the collective influence of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, the Committee of Five and the Continental Congress. As Conklin traced the intellectual traditions that shaped them, she concluded that the founders drew heavily from classical philosophy, Christianity, English legal traditions, and the inductive, scientific reasoning that was so prevalent in Enlightenment-era thought.
Their understanding of happiness, she said, was closer to human flourishing than personal pleasure. It involved a life shaped by virtue, self-government and the pursuit of the common good.
In fact, she argues that the founders would have had a hard time understanding today’s view of happiness as a purely personal matter.
“The founders would have felt that it would be incomprehensible that you could pursue your private good and not simultaneously pursue the public good,” Conklin said. “The founders believed if I’m living in harmony with the law of eternal justice, that could not help but lead to the good of my fellow human, as well. And as we seek the common good, that would circle back to benefit the individual.”
Yet even among the thinkers who influenced the founding generation, there was no single definition of happiness.
Where the idea began
To understand what it means to pursue happiness, scholars in Mizzou’s College of Arts and Science say you have to travel back more than 2,000 years to ancient Greece, where early philosophers first raised the question.
The earliest known individual to start the conversation was Socrates, who shifted philosophical questions away from the cosmos and toward human beings and how we should live.
Socrates and his pupil, Plato, argued that happiness shouldn’t stem from wealth or temporary things, Sergio Yona, associate professor of classical studies, said. Instead, they believed happiness comes from pursuing truth, wisdom and virtue.
Plato’s student Aristotle took a more grounded approach. He believed happiness could be cultivated through everyday actions such as good habits, building meaningful relationships and practicing virtue. His famous “golden mean” idea suggested that the best life is often found between extremes.
Over time, rival schools of thought emerged, Yona said. The Stoics believed happiness comes from resilience and self-mastery. Because hardship is unavoidable, they argued that people should focus on what they can control, such as their thoughts, choices and reactions.
Epicureans reached a different conclusion. Despite their modern reputation for indulgence, they were surprisingly cautious, Yona said. Epicurus taught that every choice should be weighed against long-term consequences and believed that a pleasure that leads to pain isn’t worth pursuing.
Christian thinkers later connected happiness to virtue, service and a purpose larger than oneself.
“The through line across all of these traditions,” Yona said, “is that happiness comes from making virtuous, healthy decisions that are good for both the individual and those around them.”
Why the debate still matters
Happiness has proven tough to define, in part, because it’s moderated by a value Americans hold dear: freedom.
Robert Johnson, professor of philosophy, notes that much of American history can be understood as a balancing act between those two ideals.
“The founding fathers put a great deal of emphasis on freedom, and freedom and happiness are two quite different things,” he said. “You can be very happy but have little freedom, or you can be very unhappy and have maximum freedom.”
Thinkers such as Immanuel Kant pushed back against the idea that happiness should be life’s ultimate goal. While he valued freedom and autonomous choice, he argued that happiness alone has little value if it isn’t accompanied by moral behavior.
“Happiness isn’t a good thing for Kant unless you’re a morally good person,” Johnson said. “Your happiness, no matter how happy you are, is only as good as you are morally good."
For Kant, freedom and morality are inseparable. The ability to make autonomous choices carries with it a responsibility to act according to moral principles. In that view, protecting individual rights sometimes matters more than collective happiness.
“And that’s why we have a Bill of Rights,” Johnson said. “Even if something would increase overall happiness, there are certain things you can’t do because people have rights.”
An ongoing pursuit
For Christian Birtell, BSN ’24, the pursuit of happiness isn’t a philosophical exercise. As a nurse in the cardiovascular department at MU Health Care, he strives to spread happiness on a daily basis, even as he meets people on some of their hardest days.
“I go in with a positive attitude, and that’s half the battle,” he said. “I take pride in having a job where I can help people and make a difference when they need it the most.”
As a student at Mizzou’s Sinclair School of Nursing, he founded Show Me Happy, an organization dedicated to spreading kindness, creating moments of joy and making others smile. Recently, he facilitated a collaboration between the student organization and MU Health Care’s Office of Well-Being to further its impact.
Birtell believes in living a life rooted in service, compassion and the golden rule: treating others the way you want to be treated.
While Americans may debate what it means to pursue happiness 250 years after the phrase was enshrined in the nation’s founding, Birtell’s answer is simple.
“It’s an ongoing state of being,” Birtell said. “I want to leave the world and Mizzou better than I found it. To me, that’s the ultimate happiness.”
