You will find persons who live variants of both these lifestyles (catering for one's own happiness vs. catering for others' happiness).
If one were to think of the self in terms of finite resources while taking the use of these resources to attribute benefit to the target (whether self or others) then one would face a few scenarios:
- Benefit the self greatly
- Benefit a few others significantly
- Benefit many others (relatively) insignificantly
Each while expending all or most of one's resources.
Furthermore if we were to think of the world that 'everybody' lives in as being itself a pool of finite resources from which each individual's benefit is sourced, then the picture grows less clear. Yes in a perfect world with plenty of resources it is feasible for each person to be completely selfish or selfless since the drive of competition for resources is low.
However in a scenario of middling-to-mediocre resources where few individuals achieve their dreams and many live lives of quiet desperation as the sands of time slip away - that is when the individual interest needs to be safeguarded while opening the self up to the concept of synergy in terms of the fashion in which resources are utilized.
Furthermore one can also consider the natural structure of allegiance in terms of the social and familial bonds that tie individuals' interests to each other. This is the force of sympathy where acts of benefaction towards a select few others serves to satisfy the self (in a round-about way)
It is in light of the natural force of sympathy and humanity's gravitation towards the familiar that requires that I suggest option 1 in the question (Everybody makes sure they are happy) to be the better approach - requiring less ethical gymnastics on the part of the individual practicing it.
However it is also true that once an individual is 'happy enough' that they may choose to allow some excess happiness to spill over upon those around them - fanning outwards through and beyond their familiar connections.