There are a lot of posts, articles, and general interest over the last 15 years (compared to before) on “being and maximizing happiness”.
At face value, this seems very natural. However I think a lot could be gained by tackling the necessity of even asking that question.
Nietzsche has this really interesting point that every philosopher since Plato was most interested in “the truth” without seriously considering if “the truth” was a bad thing, worth all the effort, or perhaps not as valuable as other concepts.
In the same way, a lot of religions invert the happiness question, to great effect. In Christianity, suffering is turned into a much more worthwhile and meaningful pursuit; other religions distance themselves from happiness and instead take more stoic and detachment-based paths. All of them don’t tend to address “maximizing happiness” though because I think, being the product of thousands of years of experience, any religion that tried to do that failed in the face of life and history and would not succeed in gathering adherents.
Just arm chair speculation, but it seems like any religion that promised happiness or how to be happy wouldn't be wildly successful. Not many people turn to religion when they're happy, and promising happiness to a bunch of sad people isn't going to turn out very well. Telling people that their lives sucks for a reason, we just don't know it yet, and that at least when they die they'll be happier than they could ever imagine is a pretty easy promise to keep to the living. It also gives people hope which in turn can produce happiness or at least a sense of purpose.
Not a Christian, but I spend a lot of time at church (long story). Anyway, self-sacrifice is one of the central tenets of Christianity, the idea being that Jesus Christ took on human form to suffer and die on the cross to save humanity from its grievous sins. As a result, self-sacrifice and martyrdom come up all the time in the Bible [1].
I'm not particularly good at actual theology, and I'm sure different sects of Christianity have different interpretations, but as I understand it, because of Christ's sacrifice, personal suffering is seen as something noble, or even venerable. I think it's easy to take this too far (e.g. people not accepting help because it's "noble" to suffer, or that they "deserve it"), but I digress.
From my personal experience, you are going to have misery no matter what in life. But it's amazing how often times some misery is bimodal, either you choose your misery, or it's forced on you.
As an example, you work and get paid (a form of misery because you don't have control over your own time), or you don't work and have all the time you want in the day (the misery is you are hungry cold and wet).
I found that self sacrifice in relationships almost always pays off, and is very biblically based concept. For example, being patient with a spouse you are angry with actually hurts emotionally (chosen misery), but you resolve things this way. The opposite would be to blame or fight back, and extend or lose control of the misery (ie, forced on you).
I've learned to chose my misery. Save now (misery chosen), spend now (misery forced later), etc... Maybe suffering would work equally well with misery.
At face value, this seems very natural. However I think a lot could be gained by tackling the necessity of even asking that question.
Nietzsche has this really interesting point that every philosopher since Plato was most interested in “the truth” without seriously considering if “the truth” was a bad thing, worth all the effort, or perhaps not as valuable as other concepts.
In the same way, a lot of religions invert the happiness question, to great effect. In Christianity, suffering is turned into a much more worthwhile and meaningful pursuit; other religions distance themselves from happiness and instead take more stoic and detachment-based paths. All of them don’t tend to address “maximizing happiness” though because I think, being the product of thousands of years of experience, any religion that tried to do that failed in the face of life and history and would not succeed in gathering adherents.