Hic Habitat Felicitas

Well-Being, Deontology and Utilitarianism...

Hello Fellow Hedonists,

Drawing on a range of empirical evidence, this essay argues that the failure to include, and to give sufficient weight to, fairness preferences undermines legal economists' policy recommendations. The authors argue that given the growing body of research revealing that individuals value fairness over their own rational self-interests, it is incumbent on legal economists to take preferences for fairness into account. This claim is problematic from the get go. After all, what we value (or what we prefer) isn't necessarily good for us. I think the authors are on to something, nonetheless.

Often, when simple utilitarians calculate the happiness/welfare/well-being of an individual or group, they pretend that people don't care about things such as fairness. When utilitarians, such as Peter Singer, recommend a counterintuitive social policy, they pretend that ignoring our intuitions (of the deontic variety) doesn't have a negative influence on our subjective well-being, but it wouldn't be entirely surprising if people were upset by non-utilitarian considerations even if they shouldn't be. If utilitarians were to take the influence our ineliminable (moral) judgments of right and wrong have on our subjective well-being into account, they might be forced to concede that non-utilitarian concerns (such as justice and fairness) must be respected.

Shouldn't utilitarians simply attempt to accommodate deontic considerations? I don't think so. My deontic judgments are the evolutionary by-product of morally irrelevant processes that were conducive to my fitness. Fitness, from my point of view, is morally irrelevant. Thus, it seems to me that I should ignore my deontic judgments when I try to figure out what I ought to do. However, whether or not I should ignore these judgments depends on whether or not I can. On one hand, it might turn out that I can simply dismiss my own judgments and values as systematic biases that undermine my well-being and be done with it.

On the other hand, it might turn out I can't ignore these judgments, even if I am able to recognize they are biases upon reflection. Ignoring these biases could make me miserable, even if I don't identify with them. If this turns out to be the case, it might be a good idea to chemically or surgically alter my brain to relieve myself of these harmful biases. It might also be a good (and less difficult) idea to trick myself by creating situations in which acting in accordance with these illusions doesn't undermine my well-being (intentionally damaging my brain might not work). Either way, reasoning away my conscience might not be a viable option.

                                                                                                   Excelsior!

                                                                                                   C.L.Sosis

Politics, Realism and Purpose...

Hello Fellow Hedonists,

Arthur C. Brooks has written a new book on Gross National Happiness. The data seems to show that radical liberals are happier than moderates, and that conservatives are happier than liberals. Brooks claims that extremists are extremely happy because they are certain they are right.

I haven't read the book but I would argue (tentatively) that extremist liberals are sadder than their conservative counterparts because they have a more realistic world-view (this claim is empirically verifiable), and that moderates are less happy than liberals and conservatives because they lack the sense of purpose liberals and conservatives enjoy (this claim is also empirically verifiable).

It seems that this theory is already partially supported by the extensive research on depressive realism which has shown that depressed people, as a matter of fact, have a more realistic perception of their importance, reputation, locus of control, and abilities. I imagine my interpretation of the data would also be bolstered by research which has shown that people with a sense of purpose tend to be happier than those without a sense of purpose.   

                                                                                   Excelsior!

                                                                                   C.L.Sosis

P.S. Listen to this interview with Arthur C. Brooks.

The Reality of the Money Illusion...

Hello Fellow Hedonists,

Angus Deaton, of The Gallup Institute, reports that Gallup World Poll data provides new evidence that all along the national income scale, life satisfaction rises with average income level. This seems to contradict previous findings that suggest otherwise.

                                                                                              Excelsior!

                                                                                              C.L.Sosis

P.S. Thanks for pointing this out to me, Dan Deen!

The 'Costs' of Being Happy...

Hello Fellow Hedonists,      

                                                                                                         

A new study (The Optimum Level of Well-Being: Can People Be Too Happy?) suggests that being elated isn't good for you; moderate happiness may be preferable to full-fledged elation. The researchers, Shigehiro Oishi, Ed Diener and Richard E. Lucas, (from the University of Virginia, the University of Illinois and Michigan State University, respectively) analyzed data from the World Values Survey, "the worlds most comprehensive investigation of political and sociocultural change" as well as the behaviors and attitudes of 193 undergraduate students at the University of Illinois.

                                                                                                

A plethora of studies have shown the connection between happiness and various forms of 'success'; the happier you are the 'more successful' you'll be in terms of money, employment and relationships. Other researchers have also found that happy people are, on average, healthier than unhappy people and that they live longer. Happy people are more likely (than unhappy people) to get married, are more likely to stay married and are more likely to think their marriage is going well. They’re more likely to volunteer. They’re more likely to be rated highly by their supervisor and they’re more likely to make more money. Studies seem to indicate that happiness is the cause of these sources of good fortune, as well as the result.

                                                                                             

Happiness, however, could also cost you. It turns out that "The highest levels of income, education and political participation were reported not by the most satisfied individuals (10 on the 10-point scale), but by moderately satisfied individuals (8 or 9 on the 10-point scale)." Furthermore, the study found that 10s earned significantly less money than eights or nines. Their educational achievements and political engagements were also much lower than their moderately happy and happy-but-not-blissful counterparts.

                                                                                                                                     

These findings challenge the ubiquitous assumption that indicators of success or objective well-being increase as happiness, or subjective well-being increases. While many indicators of success and well-being do correspond to higher levels of happiness, the researchers report, those at the uppermost end of the 10 point life satisfaction scale are in some respects 'worse off' than their slightly less satisfied counterparts. It should be noted that the study reaffirms the finding that happy people are more successful in social realms, engaging more often in volunteer activities and maintaining more stable relationships.

                                                                                                                                        

The researchers predicted that moderately satisfied people might be 'more successful' in some realms than those who report being more satisfied. This prediction was based on the hypothesis that profoundly happy people may be less inclined to alter their behavior or adjust to external changes even when such flexibility offers an 'advantage'.

                                                                                                                                       

The student study revealed a similar pattern in measures of academic and social success. In this analysis, students were categorized as unhappy, slightly happy, moderately happy, happy or very happy. Success in the categories related to academic achievement (grade-point average, class attendance) and conscientiousness increased as happiness increased, but dropped a bit for the individuals classified as very happy. In other words, the happy group outperformed even the very happy in grade-point average, attendance and conscientiousness. Those classified as very happy scored significantly higher on things like gregariousness, close friendships, self-confidence, energy and time spent dating.

                                                                                             

The data, Diener argues, indicate that happiness may 'need to be moderated for success' in some areas of life, such as income, conscientiousness and career: “The people in our study who are the most successful in terms of things like income are mildly happy most of the time.” In an upcoming book on the science of well-being (Rethinking Happiness) Diener notes that being elated all the time is not always good for one’s success — or even for one’s health. Reviews of studies linking health and emotions show that for people who have been diagnosed with serious illnesses, being extremely happy doesn’t always improve survival rates, Diener said. This may be because the elated don’t worry enough about issues that can have profound implications for their ability to survive their illness: “Happy people tend to be optimistic and this might lead them to take their symptoms too lightly, seek treatment too slowly, or follow their physician’s orders in a half-hearted way.”

                                                                                       

The problem here, is obvious. Diener is defining optimality in objective terms, and in doing so, he seems to presuppose that certain states of affairs have independent value, which is to say, he seems to believe, that success (among other things) matters whether or not it undermines our subjective well-being. Does Deiner really assume that these goals are valuable even if they undermine our subjective well-being overall? He seems to assume, implicitly, that happiness is costly in certain circumstances because being happy can, occasionally, be an obstacle to achievement (for instance), which is valuable even if it doesn't make us happy. One might wonder whether we should want the things we value if they make us unhappy, that is, if they compromise our subjective well-being. In light of these studies, we might just conclude that we should, upon reflection, adjust our preferences and values (if we can).

                                                 

                                                                        Excelsior!

                                                                        C.L.Sosis

Don't Judge Me: Moral Reasoning and Well-Being...

Hello Fellow Hedonists,

Templeton Prize winner, Jonathan Haidt, delivered an excellent lecture at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies on the place of harm/care and justice/fairness (as well as other non-western moral sentiments) within the context of evolutionary/moral/folk psychology. It includes an interesting discussion of the moral intuitions of liberals and conservatives.

Haidt catalogs our moral intuitions, and he seems to believe we should use this catalog as a guide to good moral reasoning. This seems to be the wrong way to formulate a good guide to moral reasoning. If we were carefully catalog our epistemic intuitions, for instance, it would be idiotic to use that catalog as a guide to good reasoning. If we did, in epistemology, what Haidt does here, in ethics, we would reason as our forefathers did: poorly. There is a better way! Our epistemic intuitions aren't reliable guides to good reasoning. It would be a miraculous coincidence if our moral intuitions were perfectly reliable guides to human well-being. 

In the end, Haidt is content to kowtow to conservatives and leave everything as he found it. If we were to follow his lead, we would encourage bad moral reasoning, moral reasoning that conforms to our moral intuitions but ultimately undermines our well-being.

                                                                                       Excelsior!

                                                                                       C.L.Sosis

                                                                                                                                                         

A Picture is Worth...

Hello Fellow Hedonists,

According to Steve Crabtree, this simple diagram is "a behavioral economics model for societies -- a macroeconomic analogue to the Gallup performance management or microeconomic model that describes the linkages between employee contributions and positive business outcomes. The heart of this new macroeconomic construct is well-being. Just as great workplaces are likely to produce engaged employees and customers, governments that effectively promote well-being can produce engaged citizens. And just as engaged employees and customers make growth and prosperity possible for companies, engaged citizens do the same for their countries. Addressing fundamental needs like law and order and food and shelter form the early steps on the macroeconomic path, followed by higher order needs like jobs and good health." I strongly recommend you read this article from the Gallup Management Journal.

                                                                                          Excelsior!

                                                                                          C.L.Sosis

P.S. If you want to know what 'brain gain' is, read this article by Jim Clifton, CEO and chairman of Gallup. 

Public (Subjective) Welfare...

Hello Fellow Hedonists,

French President Nicolas Sarkozy (a man of exquisite passion) has recruited two Nobel prize winning economists (Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen) in order to redefine economic growth in terms of quality-of-life. The president claims that we can't measure an increase in the quality of life of the citizenry by determining gross national product. He argues that the French people "can no longer accept the growing gap between statistics that show continuing progress (in growth) and the increasing difficulties they are having in their daily lives."

The president, of course, probably has ulterior motives in re-defining growth but, but he has the right idea nonetheless. In recent years, economists have shown increasing interest in the 'subjective' evaluation of living standards. For instance, Cambridge University (Faculty of Economics) has done remarkable research into the conditions that influence subjective well-being. Dr. Luisa Corrado, who led the research, discovered that, "the most important factors influencing happiness appear to be the quality of our social interaction with others and the confidence we have in our country's institutions."

Corrado argues that, "the survey shows that trust in society is very important. The countries that scored highest for happiness also reported the highest levels of trust in their governments, laws and each other." The report shows, "that it is not enough for governments to focus on improving wealth. Our well-being would be more likely to flourish in a mutually supportive and trusting society." Presumably, this is one of the reasons relatively poor countries, such as Bhutan, can be as happy or happier than relatively wealthy countries, such as the U.S.

We shouldn't decide what conditions enhance our welfare before we find out what conditions enhance our subjective well-being. It seems that we should use this research to determine what conditions, exactly, are conducive to subjective well-being then, and only then, figure out how, exactly, we can create these conditions effectively. It seems to me that welfare assessment is inevitably subjective, as is the assessment of public policy.

                                                                                                Excelsior!

                                                                                                C.L.Sosis