In light of our discussion of Bentham and Mill, you might enjoy this exploration of some of the new sociological research on self-reports of happiness:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2010/03/22/100322crbo_books_kolbert
This research raises many questions, including what people might really mean when they report on their own happiness. The deeper question, however, which Kolbert touches on at the end, is whether happiness really is the only thing that matters, as utilitarians insist. For example, if radical income or wealth inequality does not seem to make people unhappy, does it follow that we have no reason to treat it as a problem?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think a couple of ideas in the article imply (or might be used to imply) a justification of poverty on the basis of observing what we might call happiness, or on the understanding conveyed to us by such groups. In the sense that we generally use the term happiness; a person might be happy in miserable conditions—consider some (of course not all) children of impoverished nations. These children, whenever possible and in hideous conditions, manage to retain and display youthful joy and optimism. It is the obligation of humanity to provide the necessary conditions for this sort of optimism to flourish. So, even a remote consideration that the poor be “left to their relative contentment” is morally reprehensible thinking. This type of study seems to locate behavioral similarities in persons of lower and higher incomes for the purpose of further alienating or maintaining a separation of the different groups. Inequality is a reality; but that in itself does not require that we stop advocating for a universal higher standard of living. I do not think it healthy to reinforce a gross indifference in wealth on the basis that we think the poor are happy, or on their testimony that they are happy. This might be an example that happiness is not all that matters.
Or, indeed, that we construe the notion of happiness far too simple-mindedly.
The utilitarian notion of happiness as the sole purpose or goal of human beings is misleading in many respects. I think that this concept of happiness (at least as its implicitly defined in the article) comes into conflict when one considers the notion of sacrifice.
From people who give up their worldly possessions and comforts to aid people around the world, to parents who give up their retirement dreams to help their children with college debt, to, apparently, people who simply have children, sacrifices of varying degree are seemingly ubiquitous.
The fact that people consistently cede their own "happniess" for some other cause would intuitively indicate that happniess, in the narrow sense used here, is not the only thing that matters to people.
there is a vast illusion (in our society anyways) that pleasurable inner sensations or external experiences create a genuine happiness. i think of an example where a woman thinks she is happy because her husband tells her he is working extra hours to afford something nice for her and her son tells her he is becoming a missionary as she happily gives him some of her money but in reality her husband is having an affair and her son has a gambling debt. physiologically, this woman is happy but her perception of reality isn't consistent with the reality that does exist. happiness is relative as suffering is. for the lottery winners, their expectations (or tolerance) grew with the amount of money they had so the gap between where they saw themselves and where they wanted to be remained the same.
happiness does not exist in the material world, but in the metaphysical world where instead of moderation producing the most progress (as in the material world) only extremes matter (maximum happiness and minimum suffering). moderate happiness is not happiness and moderate suffering is still suffering.
"don't curse a preacher man unless you can find happiness in a prison cell" michael franti
this is a video about real epicurean happiness, i am the incarnate of epicurus...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20LTTRQcZ8c
Post a Comment