The king of Bhutan wants to make us all happier. Governments, he says, should aim to maximize their people’s Gross National Happiness rather than their Gross National Product. Does this new emphasis on happiness represent a shift or just a passing fad?
Project Syndicate
Happiness Is Equality
Robert Skidelsky | Professor Emeritus of Political Economy at Warwick University and a fellow of the British Academy in history and economics, is a member of the British House of Lords
As a philosopher, the issue is really getting the definition of "happiness" right. Why is this so? Because it is generally agreed that everyone seeks happiness, as Aristotle notes in Book One of the Nichomachean Ethics. This is the origin of the phrase "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence and its recognition as a natural right
Aristotle also observed there that while all agree about the pursuit of happiness, people disagree over what happiness is and what the means to achieve it may be. He examines the various alternatives that were proposed before settling on his own answer.
Is happiness the result of satisfaction of material preferences through rational pursuit of maximum utility? Does happiness result from the successful pursuit of fame, fortune, power, and pleasure, as is commonly supposed? Or is happiness the outcome of fairness and justice, i.e., egality, which is the tack that Lord Skidelsky takes? Or is it attendent upon progressive self-actualization, as Aristotle and Abraham Maslow, for example, claimed. Or is the abiding fulfillment of an ineffable realization the only true happiness, as perennial wisdom teaches?
Or is it something else? What would the criterion be for deciding among alternatives?
And this is before we get into the quality versus quantity distinction and how to assess quality.
Needless to say, this is not properly a question for economics. The settling of economists on a view that Aristotle rejected as adolescent vitiates the entire economic enterprise based on this arbitrary and baseless assumption, selected for computational convenience rather than correspondence with reality.
The difficulty of answering this question about what constitutes happiness arises from different views of human nature and reality itself.
Happiness Is Equality
Robert Skidelsky | Professor Emeritus of Political Economy at Warwick University and a fellow of the British Academy in history and economics, is a member of the British House of Lords
As a philosopher, the issue is really getting the definition of "happiness" right. Why is this so? Because it is generally agreed that everyone seeks happiness, as Aristotle notes in Book One of the Nichomachean Ethics. This is the origin of the phrase "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence and its recognition as a natural right
Aristotle also observed there that while all agree about the pursuit of happiness, people disagree over what happiness is and what the means to achieve it may be. He examines the various alternatives that were proposed before settling on his own answer.
Is happiness the result of satisfaction of material preferences through rational pursuit of maximum utility? Does happiness result from the successful pursuit of fame, fortune, power, and pleasure, as is commonly supposed? Or is happiness the outcome of fairness and justice, i.e., egality, which is the tack that Lord Skidelsky takes? Or is it attendent upon progressive self-actualization, as Aristotle and Abraham Maslow, for example, claimed. Or is the abiding fulfillment of an ineffable realization the only true happiness, as perennial wisdom teaches?
Or is it something else? What would the criterion be for deciding among alternatives?
And this is before we get into the quality versus quantity distinction and how to assess quality.
Needless to say, this is not properly a question for economics. The settling of economists on a view that Aristotle rejected as adolescent vitiates the entire economic enterprise based on this arbitrary and baseless assumption, selected for computational convenience rather than correspondence with reality.
The difficulty of answering this question about what constitutes happiness arises from different views of human nature and reality itself.
You should also read From Poverty to Power
ReplyDeleteThe first edition can be downloaded from the link at the bottom of the page here
Summary of the book here
Quote:
Ending the scourges of extreme poverty, inequality, and threatened environmental collapse is the greatest global challenge of the twenty-first century. One in six of the world’s people lead lives blighted by poverty, hunger, disease, and anxiety over what tomorrow may bring. The income of the world’s 500 richest billionaires exceeds that of its poorest 416 million people. Poor communities around the world are increasingly paying the price for climate change that is largely caused by the profligate carbon emissions of rich countries.
Even within countries, inequalities are grotesque. Children born into the poorest 20 per cent of households in Ghana or Senegal are two to three times more likely to die before the age of five than children born into the richest 20 per cent of households in these countries. Black Brazilians are twice as likely as white Brazilians to die a violent death, and are only one-third as likely to go to university. In the Indian states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, primary school enrolment for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe girls is 37 per cent, compared with 60 per cent for girls from non-scheduled castes. Among boys from non-scheduled castes, 77 per cent are enrolled. Such extremes are both morally repugnant and a criminal waste of talent and potential.
From Poverty to Power sets out a vision of women and men in communities everywhere who are equipped with education, enjoy good health, have rights, dignity, and voice – and are in charge of their own destinies. What is required to achieve that is nothing less than a global new deal – a redistribution of power, opportunities, and assets. The alternative – a world of ever-deepening gulfs between the ‘haves’ (in terms of wealth, technology, water, soil, carbon) and the ‘have-nots’, a dualistic world of insiders and outsiders – portends the needless suffering of continents, nations, and excluded groups within otherwise wealthy countries. Such a dystopia is both unstable and self-defeating, because the ‘uppers’ (in Robert Chambers’ terminology) will spend much of their time fending off the legions of ‘lowers’ hammering at the gates of privilege.
Active citizens and effective states
Oxfam’s experience in more than 100 countries around the world shows that the necessary redistribution can best be accomplished through a combination of active citizens and effective nation states.
Why active citizenship? Because if people are to live with dignity, and if states, firms, and others are to be held to account for their actions, it is critical that people are able to determine the course of their own lives, fighting for rights and justice in their own societies. Active citizens are an essential ingredient in making today’s states work effectively to end poverty and inequality, in ways that are sustainable.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Clonal. Got it.
ReplyDeleteJoy and happiness are the most important aspects of this existence.
ReplyDeleteHappiness can not be defined and has neither equality with nor equation to, anything outside of itself. Happiness can only be felt. Happiness constitutes itself and is in essence unconditional. Happiness springs forth from the human heart, its province; mind is merely a witness. It gives and receives, wanting not.
Happiness is a beautiful song, spreading forth over both your deserts and your fertile vallies, without judgement of what is below; nor does it care about your fortunes - it only cares for you; and would love to carry you through each day if you would allow.
Happiness embraces all, is ruled over, owned by none. Happiness emerges from and returns to itself, to emerge again and again - like the sun sharing all with each new day.
Happiness is understood by children, even babies - as soon as you allow the mind to formulate the question 'what is happiness' the bird has flown straight from your hand. The heart has been forgotten. The kookaburras are laughing and you are lost in speculation. 'Oh, what is happiness; what did I used to feel' ...?
You know, something is missing.
Happiness is inside of you - always has been, always will be until the day you pass away. You need the tools to dig it out; a heart to feel.
Mind tries to conquer it by strapping it to a concept or thing.
If you are a human being, (for happiness) you are equally, equitably and excellently, well equipped ....
Economists are just recapitulating the basic tenets of liberal society here, in which "happiness" is a subjective feeling and the the purpose of society is to facilitate the maximisation of this subjective feeling for all of its citizens equally.
ReplyDeleteIf this looks pretty weird from the perspective of the Ancients, for whom the "happy" criminal, for example, is not eudaimon, but objectively wretched and intemperate, that's because liberal society in toto is pretty weird, not just its economists.
The two greatest Stoics were Emperor Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus, a slave. It would be difficult to discern between quotes without attribution. They were both happy in the sense of fulfilled, therefore, beyond desire (preference), which is what the Stoics ideal of apathia means, not "apathy." That is to say, they were both "sages" rather than ordinary men.
ReplyDelete.... Happiness cannot be measured. There is no unit for happiness; nor can it be divided, multiplied, subtracted or added to. Happiness is NOW .... Happiness cannot be passed from one person to another - it is already in each. Happiness cannot be bought and sold. Happiness generates only itself, as one lit candle lights another: as greed generates more greed, anger generates more anger and frustration generates more frustration. Happiness is an entity - while these others are its absence. Happiness is not to be thought about (as even these words are useless) - happiness is to be felt. Happiness is a light, in a very very dark room ....
ReplyDeleteHappiness is infinite - standing on the shores of an infinite ocean, we speculate. We doubt. We theorise. Happiness is realisation, experience, discovery and commitment. Happiness is for those who happily, want to get wet. Happiness is both courage and strength, integrity; not weakness. Happiness would have us both swim in the ocean and live to the max. on the shore. If human existence is to have a goal, then happiness is the most worthy. Happiness is not a path. Mind can never grasp happiness - the natural tool is the human heart.
Happiness is inside of each. Understanding our nature and who we are is the difficult bit!!
@ jrbarch
ReplyDeleteTo put it in another way, genuine happiness as fulfillment cannot be added. The veil concealing it from conscious awareness only has to be drawn back. THAT is is what you are.
Genuine happiness is not a feeling, it is a state of being — the natural state. The process of realization of THAT is simply lifting the veil. Essentially the same process is described differently in the various wisdom traditions that constitute perennial wisdom.
That brings up something to think about Tom - metaphors of 'veils' and 'perennial' wisdom.
ReplyDeleteThere is an incredible arrogance, discounted in human nature. P.R. drew my attention to the face of Adam in Michelangelo's 'Creation of Adam' - almost disinterestedly and reluctantly lifting a finger towards the outstretched arm of G.O.D.
Standing on the shores of an infinite ocean we turn our back. VIP's. Then we go create in our image - even Diety, who is personal and mean - just like us. Then we pray to our Diety. Do things, in his (not her) name.
Or, the infinitely small, insignificant and temporary turns away and declares the limitless ocean of Energy to be non-existent. Oh my! Our reality is thought to consist only of everything we create for ourselves. Ha!!!!
If there are veils, it is the ones we have wrapped tightly around ourselves. If wisdom that is perennial is known only to a few, it is because we have our eyes tightly shut and are dreaming; war is hallucination. Greed haunts us.
As Mr Hu would say to Maxwell Smart: 'Amazing ....'
Being a bit more serious now - I think I would say Happiness is not only a state of being, but Being Itself - and the only way we can experience it is through feeling.
When the mind quietens down, we are feeling machines. Put anger in front of us and that is what we will feel. Put that infinite ocean of kindness in front of us, then that is what we feel.
We get to choose .... the inner universe responds. This is reality!
It is absolutely beautiful, to see peace dawning in human eyes.
As an example, there was a case recently in a small town near where I live, in which a group of Asian men had been systematically abusing white working class girls. This has now semi blown-up into controversy, but was ignored for years for various reasons. At one point the parents of a girl called the authorities who found her in a house owned by the men, with drugs and so on. The response of the authorities was that it wasn't a problem for them because "it's a lifestyle choice."
ReplyDeleteIn other words, if your teenage daughter wants to run off, take drugs and have sex with old men, then that's up to her. She's only expressing her subjective preferences or desires, and everyone's desires are equally valid. Just because you, the parents, find this a bit hard to deal with, who are you to judge, at the end of the day?
It struck me as a perfect example of the logical absurdities to which late liberalism has lead. Liberal society no longer has a positive conception of the good--in fact any such conception is regarded with suspicion as overly judgemental and potentially restrictive of the freedom of others. Freedom being, of course, the only good that people are really interested in. Liberalism is no longer about giving everyone the equal freedom to pursue noble aims, but rather, the freedom to do anything, no matter how base or degraded--even if it means children are being drugged and sexually abused by older men. According to the logic of liberalism, since the children a are "free to choose" it, it must be good.
Liberalism is no longer about giving everyone the equal freedom to pursue noble aims, but rather, the freedom to do anything, no matter how base or degraded--even if it means children are being drugged and sexually abused by older men. According to the logic of liberalism, since the children a are "free to choose" it, it must be good.
ReplyDeleteAgreed and even über-Libertarian Murray Rothbard said that we must not confuse liberty with license.
How do we draw that distinction? Here is where I would say as libertarian of the left that this is an aspect of harmonizing personal liberty, egality, and community-solidarity.
And I agree that things have gotten way out of hand. Both Buddha and Aristotle taught the middle way between denial and indulgence, and I agree.
Neither freedom from constraint nor freedom to choose leads to real freedom. Real freedom is based freedom for self-actualization, and that requires self-discipline and the support of a community ethos and rule of law. Freedom without responsibility just leads in the end to greater bondage and a thickening of the veils of ignorance and illusion.
Building on what has already been said about freedom: - how easily a discussion about happiness morphs into a discussion of freedom, and v.v.! Freedom and happiness keep other company too, like clarity, gratitude, appreciation and respect. They all hang out together. In every culture, in every land - mention the word 'freedom' and everybody responds. Everybody has a definition of what freedom means to them - and given their circumstances, they are probably correct. And freedom there should be.
ReplyDeleteOne could say - 'I am free when I feel free'! I may be in gaol, I may be in the middle of a battlefield, I may be caught up in the worst personal disaster of my life; but if I truly feel free - I am free. When I feel rich, I am rich. When I feel strength, I am strong. When I feel happiness, I am happy. And as long as this feeling is based on a reality within me, then I am, in that reality, free! When the nightingale awaits the rising moon, then bursts into song - for that moment I would say it is free.
The acts perpetrated against that young girl were criminal.
So many problems in the world, but freedom contains within itself an infinite variety of answers .....
Every day, I feel I must learn how to look, as deeply as I can. Beyond what the world has to say about things because the world really hasn't got a clue.
Tom: Well said.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, one of my favourite books is Pure: Modernity, Philosophy and the One, a beautiful work of Platonic philosophy by Mark Anderson. Have you ever read it? It's quite germane to the discussion here.
I have not read Anderson's Pure, vimothy, nor had I heard of it. I just did a quick search to familiarize myself with it, and I would say that this has been my approach to a degree, but with less of what Anderson admits is a "reactionary and conservative" stance.
ReplyDeleteHere is an interesting review and an interaction in the comments between Mark Anderson and the reviewer. My stance is closer to the reviewer's than Anderson's, in that I don't look to a top down hierarchical resolution but rather a networked one in terms of humanity as a complex evolutionary system embedded in a larger complex adaptive system.
However, I agree with Anderson's postion here, which I think is an admission by him that a networked solution is the only one practical.
"I think that all one can do is "avoid the modern problematic." "Avoid" is the key word here. In other words, withdraw. Not a monkish withdrawal (not to deny that this is good for some; I believe that it is), but rather what I have taken to calling Platonic Bohemianism. The American Bohemians withdrew by declining to participate in the trends and characteristic behaviors and activities of bourgeois society; but what they adopted in place of these things was decadence. The Platonic Bohemian remains a part of society--lives, works, marries, etc in it--but he withdraws by adopting a lifestyle (philosophical assumptions first and foremost, but also attitudes and behaviors, even an outward appearance) that reflects his Platonic commitments."
Maverick Philosopher, Notes on Mark Anderson, Pure: Modernity, Philosophy, and the One
At the same time, if people of good will don't cooperate to correct the dysfunctional hierarchical institutional structure that is presently in place, ecological collapse is inevitable, and that could involve species collapse.
Yes, even though Anderson is something of reactionary, you might find that there is some overlap, just as we have found agreement here.
ReplyDeleteAt any rate, Anderson's prose is lovely, and the book is very quotable, written in a kind of Nietzschean, aphoristic style. It's also short!
Thanks for the link. It's an interesting discussion. The following comment is on point:
Unfettered “liberty” leads—not necessarily, but practically—to enslavement; the “liberated” individual is slave to his unnecessary desires and to those who manipulate them.
I have it on my list, vimothy. It is definitely in my field of interest. Thanks for the heads up.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete