Philosophers have been discussing the
nature and possibility of happiness for as long as philosophy has existed. From
Socrates on down, there have been many attempts to provide an understanding of
the nature of happiness and the ways that individuals might attain it. Later, a
more social theory of happiness emerged stressing the role education and
knowledge play in creating a world free of superstition in which everyone has a
chance to develop their capacities in a society that encourages
self-development and the happiness of all. This movement culminated in the
ethical theory of Utilitarianism, which self-consciously aims at promoting the
happiness and well-being of the greatest number of people. The question before
us now is whether there might not be a science of happiness in light of which
we can collectively aim to create a better world in which increasing numbers of
people have a chance to live happy and flourishing lives.
The idea that societies ought to be
arranged in such a way as to maximize happiness in the population led to a
number of progressive measures to benefit both individuals and society. In
large part, we have this idea to thank for the development of wash houses,
sewer systems, public hospitals, parks, museums and so on. In the English
countryside there are countless plaques commemorating the deeds of
philanthropists who improved their towns and cities. More recently, this
impulse seems to have waned. However, with the help of neurophysiology,
psychology and economics, we may be able now to put together a science of
happiness that can motivate social change through a revitalized utilitarian
philosophy for the 21st Century.
The desire to make utilitarianism
scientific is there from the beginning, but the means to accomplish it was
lacking. The founder of Utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham, proposed a Hedonic
Calculus to measure the amount of pleasure people experience in units of
‘Hedons.’ The Calculus was to give us a
proper scientific measure of pleasure, and thus happiness. For Bentham, a happy
life is one in which the pleasures of life outweigh the inevitable pains. If
all pleasures are equal, as they are for Bentham, and we can quantify
pleasures, and we understand happiness in terms of pleasure, then we seem to be
approaching a ‘science’ of happiness.
The problem with all this, of course, is
that the ‘Hedonic’ calculus is not a scientific measure. Pleasures are not
quantified as easily as Bentham supposed, for they are, after all, only the
satisfactions of desires, and there are many sorts of desires. Some desires are
simple and others are complex. Some carry intellectual and moral freight;
others do not. Their satisfaction is not easily measurable along a scale of
individual experiences of pleasure and pain.
There seems to be an inescapably social dimension to our happiness that
is not reflected directly in our immediate experiences, but rather forms the background
conditions for the existence of happier societies.
The project is to clarify collective
human goals that will advance the cause of human well being, led by ideas of
happiness that we discover from what people tell us about what makes them happy
or miserable. There is no a priori access to the nature of happiness. A science
of happiness must be empirical. If we can find out what makes people happy by
asking them, then we can use our reason to contrive the most viable means to
attain the desired end.
Happiness involves physical, mental,
emotional and spiritual well-being. There are a number of factors involved and
they do not all reduce to sensations of pleasure or pain. For example, feeling
physically safe, financially secure, healthy, and well educated positively
affects our happiness. Underpinning this sense of well being are the existence
of a good education system, access to medical services, and a decent social
safety net in time of need.
For the development of the mind,
education is a top priority for promoting happiness. For emotional well being
we need solid and supportive relations with others, family, friends, community;
and very importantly for most people, a close loving partnership with a special
person. For a sense of spiritual well being, freedom of religious belief and
worship is very important to the self-described happiness of billions of
people.
More than this, our chances for happiness
increase when we feel that we live in societies with human, civil and political
rights. Similarly, we tend to be happier when we live with the freedom to plot
the course of our own lives without too much outside interference. Furthermore,
we are happier when we feel that human beings are mainly good and trustworthy,
and we feel better about life if we do not think that our government or
business community is corrupt. On discovering that they are, our level of
happiness declines.
The
picture we are left with is filled out with the help of the aforementioned
disciplines. From philosophy we get a reinvigorated utilitarian social project.
From the exciting new field of neuroscience we are learning about the chemistry
of pleasure and anxiety. From psychology we get an enhanced understanding of
the components of human happiness. And finally, we gain an economic theory that
moves beyond the ‘Invisible Hand’ and the abstract conception of human beings
as rational self-interested units. We understand now that the Gross National
Product is not the final measure of human happiness and well being, and that
the social costs of production and consumption must be factored into the
productive processes themselves. So perhaps now, with the addition of these
other disciplines, we can redefine our social goals, agree to strive for them,
and together forge a new consensus on how move forward with the new science of
happiness to guide us.
No comments:
Post a Comment