Best in Show Critique by Mikhail Shimonov
According to the movie, Best in Show, happiness is a perception that apparently can only be achieved if one is victorious in whatever they choose to venture. The movie displays a group of owners that strive to be the best they can be in terms of how well they groom their dog, how they treat the dog and how well they train their dog – each trying to win in a certain contest and in the end the whole competition. Following in this pattern, it would seem obvious that in order to try to reach happiness you would have to be best, number 1, best than everyone else you’re up against.
This, however, is a post hoc fallacy because you would assume that winning would lead to happiness and therefore since a precedes b, than it would make sense that a caused b, but that is not true. As shown at the end of the movie, only one dog was chosen as the winner yet all the dog groomers inevitably became happy – even if they weren’t during the majority of the movie leading up to the final competition.
In conclusion, the argument of happiness being the outcome of victory is a complete hoax. It is simply not true given the scenario above. One can always achieve happiness from either being successful at something or simply because they finally they did something they liked, not always from winning competitions.
Very true, but winning would always made someone’s happiness greater than it would be without winning. Definitely agree with your reasons why everyone was happy in the end even though they didn’t win.
I agree with your conclusion but couldn’t victory be the reason why the couple became happy at the end? It felt like they were having a lot of arguements because of the girls past but their victory brought them together.